'^ London
AND
Londonderry
TRANSACTIONS
OF
Three Centuries
Considered from a Historical and
Legal Stardpoint
m
Bis
d^
l,*>^-^a
Return this book on or before the
Latest Date stamped below. A
charge is made on all overdue
books.
U. of I. Library
Mriv;
[1 > .-
60
11148-S
London
AND
Londonderry
TRANSACTIONS
OF
Three Centuries
Considered from a Historical and
Legal Standpoint
' Sic vos fion vobis "
%ont>on: ^
MARCUS WARD & CO., LIMITED
ORIEL HOUSE, FARRINGDON STREET, E.C.
AND AT ROYAL ULSTER WORKS, BELFAST
1890
..^l
i
PREFACE.
"P^ARLIAMENTARY discussions and press references
-*- to the matters dealt with in this treatise, have not
hitherto furnished to the pubh'c the material on which
any well-considered opinions could be based.
Favourable opportunities have been availed of for
investigating the many vo)uminous records which contain
all that can be considered historical on the subject ; and
the result of a very close investigation is now given in
the most condensed form, compatible with lucidity.
Many current statements, though of importance, have
been excluded, becau.'^e not contained in the records
referred to, and care has been taken to keep within the
accurate limitations indicated in the title.
J. C. W.
Belfast,
April, i8go.
1
5?8I4
LONDON AND LONDONDERRY.
SECTION I.
THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE PLANTATION.
In 1608, the greater part of six counties in the province of Occasion of
Ulster, viz., Donegal, Fermanagh, Cavan, Tyrone, Armagh,
and Coleraine, had, upon the attainder of the Roman
Catholics in the recent rebellions (that of O'Neill and
O'Donnell, and that of O'Dogherty), escheated to and were
then absolutely vested in King James I. in right of his
Crown ; and about that year King James, with the advice
of his Privy Council, was desirous of planting a settlement
of his Protestant subjects on the escheated lands,('z) His
Majesty's object being to secure the peace and welfare
of Ulster by establishing and securing the Protestant
religion there, and replacing the rebellious Irish by
English and Scotch settlers, together with such of the
natives • as might be willing to conform to the English
religion and English customs.
In pursuance of this design a collection of Orders and Orders and
Conditions were issued by the Privy Council,!') addressed 1^8.'"°"^
to all undertakers. In the preamble it is stated that the
King, " of his princely bounty, not respecting his own profit,
" but the peace and welfare of that kingdom, by the civil
^^ plantation of those waste and unreformed countries, is
" graciously pleased to distribute the said lands to such of Qualifications
" his subjects, as well of Great Britain as of Ireland, as ° "" ^'" '^ '^'^^
{a) Skinners' Company v. Irish Society ; Case for Respondents, the Mayor
and Commonalty and Citizens of London, p. 3 ; Appendix to Case for Respon-
dents, p. 148.
(/') Appendix to Case for Respondents, pp. 146-149.
6 London and Londonderry.
"being of merit and ability shall seek the same, with
" a mind not only to benefit themselves, but to do service
"to the Crown and Commonwealth," aqd complains that
some are importunate for too large portions, "intend-
" ing their private profit only." Three classes of under-
takers were recognised — ist, Those who were to plant with
English and Scotch tenants ; 2nd, Servitors or Military
undertakers; 3rd, Native Irish to be admitted as Free-
holders. The chief difference in these three classes was in
The Kin- s the quit-rent reserved to the King, ;^5 6s. 8d. per 1,000
""'^' acres for the first class, and for the second where they plant
with English and Scotch tenants ; ^8 for the second class
where they leave the Irish tenants; and £\o 133. 4d. for
the third class. All were required to have strong places
and arms for military defence, to let their lands on the easy
rent of undertakers, to avoid Irish exactions, and to be resi-
dent. None were permitted to accept as tenants the " mere"
Irish. A most important provision was that in each of the
counties there should be a convenient number of market
towns, and corporations for tradesmen and artificers, and at
least one free school in every county for the education of
youth in learning and religion. Authority was given to all
but the third class to create manors, and the British under-
takers were offerad the privilege of importing from Great
Britain for three years, free of custom, everything requisite
for placing the plantation on a satisfactory footing. In
July, 1609, Commissioners were appointed, with instruc-
First Survey, tious to survcy the cscheated lands, and divide them into
convenient parcels,(«) allocating suitable sites for towns.
From these it is evident that to promote the general
interests of the whole realm was the King's object, not the
private profit of the undertakers.
I'roposais for As early as 1609, the King showed great anxiety that
tlie Londoners ,^r/-.
Settlement. the Couuty of Colcrame should be undertaken by the City
of London, probably thinking that powerful Corporation
better fitted than individual undertakers to attempt the
[a) Appendix to Case for Kespondcnt.s, p. 149.
The Golden Age of the Plantation. 7
most important and difficult part of the work ; for from the
first he meant this county to form the kernel of the whole
Plantation, as furnishing the easiest means of communication
with Great Britain. Accordingly, proposals were made in
His Majesty's name about 1st July, 1609, through the then
Lord Mayor, that the Corporation should undertake the task
of restoring the city of Derry and the town of Coleraine,
and planting the rest of the county with undertakers/^)
These proposals were supported by a printed copy of Motives and
" Motives and Reasons to induce the City of London to
" undertake the Plantation in the North of Ireland." (''')
These included the ofier of the customs for twenty-one
years at 6s. 83. per annum, the fisheries of the Bann and the
Foyle, free licence to export wares grown on their own
lands, and the admiralty of Tyrconnell and Coleraine. To
this was added a glowing description of the commodities
for food, manufactures, and commerce yielded by the
North of Ireland, its sea and rivers ; and the profits held
out to London were summed up in the following all-
important statement : —
" If multitudes of men were employed proportion-
"ally to these commodities which might be there by
" industry attained, many thousands would be set on work
" to the great service of the King, strength of his realm,
" advancement of several trades, and benefit of particular
"persons, whom the infinite increasing greatness (that
"often doth minister occasion of ruin to itself) of this
" city might not only conveniently spare, but also reap a
" singular commodity by easing themselves of an insupport-
" able burthen which so surcharged all the parts of the city
" that one tradesman can scarce live by another, which in all
" probability would be a means also and preserve the city
"from infection; and by consequence the whole kingdom,
"of necessity, must have recourse thither, which persons
" pestered or closed up together can neither otherwise or
" very hardly avoid.
(a) Case for Appellants, p. 2 ; Appendix, &c. , p. 150. {b) Ibid. pp. 150^152.
8
London and Londonderry.
Advantages
held out to
the City of
London.
No individual
personal gain
offered.
" These colonies may be a means to utter infinite com-
" modities from London, to furnish the whole North of
" Ireland, which may be transported by means of the rivers
"of Bann and Lough Foyle into the counties of Coleraine,
" Donegal, Tyrone, Armagh,' and Antrim."
As a further spur to the City to undertake this " pious
" and patriotic purpose," and in particular to restore the
city of Derry, the example of Dublin, restored by the
citizens of Bristol in the reign of Henry II., is cited for
their imitation.
From all this, bearing in mind that the Orders and
Conditions for undertakers of the previous year must be
held binding on the Londoners as well (except as subse-
quently modified, e.g.., in the amount of the quit-rent), it is
evident that the following were the advantages offered to
the City, viz. : —
1st. An abundant supply of raw material for their manu-
factures, with the advantage of procuring these under
favourable conditions.
2nd. A large supply of articles to create a profitable
commerce.
3rd. An extensive and convenient market for their wares
of all kinds (infinite coniniodities ).
4th. The relief of the City from over-population, and
the establishment of the surplus in circumstances where
they could have an easy livelihood.
There is not the slightest hint as to the acquisition of
personal gain by any individual member of the Corpora-
tion, or by the members generally(«) (which may have been
one reason why strong pressure was required, and in the
case of the Companies actual threats). In fact, the easy
rents of undertakers, taken in connection with the forced
levies afterwards raised, negatives such a supposition, and
the mention of benefit of the particular persons who were
to be settled on the lands (that is, the future tenants) con-
clusively proves that direct personal gain was not intended
(a) Sec Case of the Mayor, S:c., of London, p. 4.
The Golden Age of the Plantation. 9
for any others. But the benevolent and patriotic inten-
tions of His Majesty have been sadly eluded, as the after
history will show.
On 1st July, 1609, the Court of Aldermen (the Legis- xheCompanies
lative of the Corporation, as the Court of Common Council city to
is the Executive) sent a precept to each of the Companies ""^ertake.
desiring them to appoint representatives to consider on
what terms they would be willing to undertake, and to
report by 5th July.('') A similar precept was issued on
14th July, requiring the Companies to give in their answer
in writing.(''') Their answer displeased the Lords of the
Privy Council (in other words, they refused to undertake),
as we see by the report of the Court of Aldermen, i8th
July, in which the City appoint a Committee of their own The City take
"to treat and confer concerning the Plantation, and to ignoring the
" make report to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen "(0 h° Comprn°is.
(not to the Companies or to their Committee). On July
22nd, after the report, a precept was issued to the Com-
panies requiring them to ascertain " what every particular
"man will willingly adventure j'^'^) and on 24th July, a
further order was issued requiring the Companies to have a
full meeting to ascertain what each man " will willingly
" CONTRIBUTE to the furtherance of so noble a project,"
and requiring absent members to be noted, in order that
they might hQ fined for contempt.
On 1st August, 1609, the Court of Common Council Viewers
appointed four viewers to "survey the place and grounds
" intended for the new Plantation, and to make report to this
" Cityy^^) These gentlemen having made their report, a
further Committee was appointed to confer with them on
2nd December,!/) and on 15th December the Court of Com-
mon Council approved of certain demands to be made on
behalf of the City.C?) what money should be expended, what
(a) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 152.
(b) Ibid. pp. 152, 153. (<-) Ibid. p. 153.
(d) Pleadings in Chancery, Skinners' Company v. Irish Society, pp. 455, 456.
(e) Ibid. pp. 458, 459.
(/) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, pp. 47, 48. [g) Ibid. pp. 48, ^g.
behalf of tlie
City,
lo Londo7i and Londonderry.
things should be performed, and how all should be ordered.
The money proposed to be expended was ^15,000, to be
raised "/« the Companies by the poll according to the corn
" rate," some inferior Companies to be spared, but not the
ij.mands on able vieii in them. The demands were, in addition to what
the King had already offered, the woods of Glenconkene
and Killetrovve for building, with church patronage, and
the rents of the 7,000 acres (4,000 for Derry and 3,000 for
Coleraine) to be 53s. 4d., or about one-fifteenth of that
required of ordinary undertakers, with restrictions on
exports, save by licence from the city officers of Uerry and
Coleraine, and certain further liberties, with forces for
defence maintained at the King's charge. What was to be
done was to build 200 houses at Derry and leave room for
300 more, and to build 100 at Coleraine and leave room
for 200 more, and to make fortifications for defence. The
management was proposed to be by means of a Committee
constituted in London (afterwards the Irish Society). On
December 22nd, ^5,000 more was voted for the "clearing of
" private men's interests."('') By agreement of 28th January,
'1C09 (16 10), with the Privy Council, the demands were
conceded with slight modifications, the chief being to
require sixty houses at D^rry and forty at Coleraine, to be
finished by ist November following, and the rest of the
houses by ist November, 161 !.(''') On 9th January, a pre-
cept was issued to the Companies by the Lord Mayor in
Common Council for the immediate levying of ^^5,000, the
first instalment of the ;^20,ODO.(') On 19th March, 161 1, a
precept was issued for the levying of the residue.!*^) The
precept of 9th January terminated with the significant
words — "Wherein you are not to fail, as you will answer
" the contrary."
1 hcse precepts Now, it is worthy of note that these two latter precepts,
n t.ixdiioit, not . , , ^ , . . _ . , .
a proposal for With numcrous othcrs for the raismg of further sums of
apurciias:. money, are not by way of invitation to purchase, but
{a) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. 49. (l>) Ibid. pp. 51, 52.
(<•) Ibid. p. SQ {d) Ibid. pp. 53, 54.
The Golden Age of the Plantation. 1 1
authoritative and peremptory. The levies were in fact a
tax, and a tax not to be levied on the Companies, but in
the Companies. This was then the regular method of
raising money for any and every public purpose. The
Corporation, either receiving notice from the King what
amount was required from the City, or themselves resolving
on some taxation for a municipal or othcf public object,
apportioned the taxation among the different Companies,
requiring each to raise its quota among its own members.
No other method would then have been so convenient, as
every burgess was required to be a member of some one
or other of the Guilds or Companies ; and over these Com-
panies the Corporation of London exercised a sway, both
legislative and executive, that was practically absolute.
In proof of this, we find members and officers of the Com-
panies fined, expelled, or committed to prison by orders of
the Courts of Aldermen and Common Council,'"^) the corn
rate assessed on all the Companies,!''') soldiers raised and
ships ordered to be built,(^)and the expenses of State page-
antry{<^) levied by the same authority. This fact is of itself
sufficient to refute the claim that the lands in County Derry
were " purchased " by the twelve Companies and their asso-
ciates, as some of them had the hardihood to allege in their
returns to the " City of London Liveries Commission " in
1882, even after the decision of the House of Lords in 1839,
in the case of the Skinners' Company v. the Irish Society.
Indeed, the very word "taxation" occurs in one of the
precepts, and Mr. Kindersley, for the Irish Society, in
1838, strongly maintained and proved by the facts of the
case and numerous other instances that it was taxation,
compelling the Companies to be "volunteers," as they
style themselves. The Companies allege that the City
were their " agents " in the whole transaction, but it is a .\ strange forr.-.
curious kind of agency where the "agents" compel their ° ' -^"'^•'
principals to disburse sums of money, threatening them
((z) Appendix to Case for Respondents, pp. 452, 453, (b) Ibid. pp. 453, 454
(<■) Ibid. pp. 455-457- (.d) Ibid, pp 457-458-
1 2 London and Londonderry.
with penalties if they refuse. A slave-driver would, on this
principle, be the " agent " of the slaves he whips, or a rack-
renter the " agent " of the tenants from whom he exacts
his rents.
By decree of Common Council, loth July, 9th James I.
(161 1), .£^20,000 more was levied by the same " agents,"(«)
but liberty was in this instance offered to the Companies
to decline paying their quota, if they were content to lose
their previous contributions. Two minor Companies ac-
cepted this alternative, and their shares were transferred to
the Corporation of London.
On the 14th January, 1610 (161 1), power was given by
the Common Council to the Committee of the Corporation
(afterwards the Irish Society) to divide the lands among
the Companies that were willing to accept them, "and so
"to build and plant the same" [the Plantation] ''at their
" own cost and charges accordingly, as by the Printed Book of
" Plantation is reqnircd.'\i') (That is, the lands were not
to be granted as the private property of the Companies.)
The alternative The alternative offered by the Lord Mayor was "that
° '■"'''^' • " you will refer the letting and disposing thereof to the
" Governor and Committee." By the 28th February, eight
of the principal Companies had expressed their willingness
to accept the lands, and the other four afterwards consented
also.
Answers to the In 1610, Certain propositions were submitted to the Privy
epiity. (Council from the Lord Deputy, Sir Arthur Chichester,
to which answers were returned, including the following
points : — (2) " The Londoners are to plant their lands as
"other undertakers do, excepting the special privileges
"excepted in the Articles. (25) The Londoners ^x& first to
"provide habitations for such poor and necessary men as
" they draw thither for their business, and afterwards to let
"for such rents as shall be fitting as well for the good of the
" Plantation as for some valuable rent (THE CHARGE CON-
" SIDERED), the Londoners ahv ays performing the Articles of
(a) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. 57. (/■) Ibid. p. 55.
The Golden Age oj the Plantation. i 3
" Plantation!^'') It would appear from this that the sub-
scribers were intended to recoup themselves for their
outlay, but this was never done ; the Companies, when they
obtained the lands, adding all the proceeds to their cor-
porate funds, instead of repaying their members who had
been taxed.
The King always continued to display the anxiety for Ti <• King's
the welfare of the tenants (then future) that appears from goo'aof the
this 25th Answer (a good example, which appears to have '"^"^"'s.
been uniformly followed by Charles I., but to have gone
into disuse afterwards), and therefore was in no hurry to
grant the Charter, and have the lands finally assigned,
until the preliminary conditions were fulfilled. His caution
was fully justified, even at this early period.
In 1612 a letter was sent to the King, seemingly by Sir shortcomings
Thomas Phillips,(' ) which stated, " They should have built Londoners.
" before this at the Derrie 200 houses, and now there are
" not 20." " The Londoners, seeking manifestly their own
" private advantage, neglect the common good, and convert
" much timber to merchantable uses." The scire facias will
prove this last charge true.
On the 2ist December, 1612, the King wrote to Sir A. jhe Kings
Chichester, quoting these complaints, stating, " If there ''^"^'■' '^■^■
" were no reason of State to press it forward, yet we would
" pursue and efifect that work with the same earnestness,
" merely for the goodness and morality of it, esteeming the
"settling of religion, the introducing of civility, order, and
" government among a barbarous and unsubjected people,
" to be the acts of piety and glory, and worthy also a
" Christian Prince to endeavour;" and after giving numerous
directions, he concluded — " Once again we do strictly
"enjoin you to give us a faithful account of the trust which
" we repose in you, without care or fear to displease any of
"our subjects, English or Scottish, of what quality soever. "M
(a) Hill's Plantation in Ulster, pp. 407, 415. (//) Ibid. p. 420.
(c) Case for Respondenls, the Irish Society, p. 22 ; Plendings in Ch.incery,
P- 519-
r'lantntion
purposes.
14 London and Londonderry.
Tiie Charter of This letter probably produced good effects for the moment.
Kinsf lames I. . .. . ■■«■ , ^ » /* r^t
At all events, on 29th March, 1013, the first Charter was
granted, r.ot to the Coinpauies, which had never yet been men-
tioned by the King or his advisers, but to the Irish Society,
as representing the Corporation of the City of London for
Plantation purposes. The preamble enumerates the "piotis
" and patyiotic purposes" which the King had in view, and
credits the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of London with
a " flagrant zeal to promote this our pious intention," and
with having made progress therein. («^ The Charter then
directs the formation of the County of Londonderry, then
first so named, defines the jurisdiction of Derry and
Coleraine, and incorporates the City under a specified
government, subject to the Irish Society, which is con-
incorporation stituted and incorporated " for the better ordering, direct-
Socii^ty for " iHg, and governing all and all manner of things for and
"concerning the City and Citizens of Londonderry afore-
" said, and the aforesaid County of Londonderry, and the
" Plantation to be made within the same City and County
" of Londonderry, and other businesses belonging to the
" same.'V) giving the Society power to purchase and hold in
fee, for these purposes, lands, goods, &c., in England or in
Ireland, to have a common seal, and to sue or be sued.W
It al.so nominates the first members, and provides for the
election of half their number (except the Governor and the
Recorder of London) each year.<'0 Several formal pro-
i..in(!sgrartid. visions follow, and then comes the grant of the lands,
Timber .,,, rT »*»!• r r->
reserved for mcludmg the barouy of Loughmshohn, taken from Co,
purposes'"///)'. Tyrone, and a grant of the timber of Glenconkene and
Killetragh only for the Plantation, " and the building of
" Houses and Edifices, . . . and to be spent towards
" other necessary uses of our aforesaid realm in Ireland,
(li) C.ise for Respondents, the Irish Society, p. 22.
(/') -Appendix to Case for Respondents, pp. 224, 225 ; C.ise for Respondents,
the Irish Society, p. 22.
((■) .\ppendix to Case for Respondents, p. 269 ; Case for Respondents, the
Irish Society, p. 24.
((/) .Appendix, &c., p. 220; Case, &c., |i. 24.
The (j olden Age. of Ihe P lanlaiion. i 5
" . . . and not for any other causes to be merchandized
"and sold."(«) The fisheries of the Foyle and the Bann to
Lough Neagh are also granted/''') and covenants of further
assurance are added. Power is also granted to create
manors and establish manor courts.(') Some minor privi-
leges are also granted — some temporary, some perpetual —
and some specified duties, military and ecclesiastical, are '
imposed.
On the face of this Charter it is evident that the Irish ihe iriih
Society were in no sense intended to be beneficiaries from 'uu^.Jt^u^r^
this grant, but merely Trustees for public purposes. This ''"J.''"^^^^
is proved, not merely by the specific duties imposed on
them, but by the following all-important considerations : —
1st, The Society were incorporated and received their
powers for Plantation purposes only; 2nd, The timber
granted them was forbidden to be made matter of mer-
chandise, being reserved for Plantation purposes, and other
necessary uses in Ireland. In this latter respect, therefore,
the duties were more extensive than the delegated authority.
(The supposition that they were trustees for the Companies,
as afterwards alleged by the Skinners' Company, is unworthy
of serious consideration, for the Companies had not yet been
mentioned by the Crown.) It must be added that all the
Crown proposals previously are to be taken along with the
Charter, which refers back to them, viz., the Orders and
Conditions, the Motives and Reasons, and the xArticles
of Agreement with the Privy Council. It has been
shown before that these do not include but exclude
private or individual gain. The Charter to the town of
Coleraine, June 28th, 161 3, in no way modifies any of
the trusts.
After a view of the lands by two plenipotentiaries
appointed by the Court of Common Council,^ Messrs.
Smithies and Springham, the lands were divided among the
(a) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 269.
(h) Ihid. p. 254. (c) Ibid. pp. 274, 277-278, &c.
(d\ Case for the Respondents, the Irish Society, pp. 23, 24.
s
i6 Londtm and Londonderry.
twelve Companies by Act of Common Council, December
i/tb, 1613, the ferries, fisheries, and town lands (of Derry
and Coleraine) being reserved for the management of the
Irish Societ}', in accordance with the recommendation of
the viewers.('0
Kurthcr The King still observed his praiseworthy caution. The
the Londoners. Conditions imposed on the undertakers, especially that
prescribing the easy rent of undertakers, and those for
completing with due speed the buildings of Derry and
Coleraine, were systematically neglected, and the policy of
"grab-all" (to use the words of Mr. Lea, M.P., 1889) was
begun by the Companies. This is proved by the letter of
Mr. G. Canning, agent for the Ironmongers' Company, in
May, 161 5 (besides other evidence) — "Here are some English
" and Scotch which are willing to deal with me for some of
"your townlands, and hardly any of the English comes to
" the rents they are now at, if tliey build at their oivn charge"
(a condition not warranted by the King's grant)
" If the natives do depart from off the City lands, the prices
" will doubtless fall. I desire to be fully instructed upon
" what conditions and covenants I may safely set part of
"your lands to the natives."!^') In the summer of 161 5 Sir
Josias Bodley was sent to report on the state of Ulster.
His report was most unfavourable,(''') and gave rise to King
King James' James' letter to Sir A. Chichester, 31st August, 161 5,
15. (jjj.g(,t.jng ^ ^g^ survey by Sir J. Bodley, and that the
Londoners and all other planters be required to repair
their defects and omissions, concluding with the following
postscript /;/ the Kings own hand: — " My Lord, in this
" service I expect that zeal and uprightness from you, that
" you will spare no flesh, English nor Scotch, for no private
" man's worth is able to counterbalance the particular
" safety of a kingdom, which this Plantation, being well
" accomplished, will procure."^' )
(a) C^sL- for Respondents, the Irish .Society, pp. 24-25
(l>) Hill's Plantation in Ulster, p. 449.
(<■) Cn^e for Respondents, the Irish Society, p. 27.
rhe* Golden Age of the Plantation. \ y
This letter, and the subsequent investigation in 1616, Licence to hold
1 ,- . ■ . , T , • 1 /- in i '" Mortmain.
must have frightened the Londoners into a better fulnlment
of their duties for the time, for, on 30th September, 1616,
the King granted a licence to the twelve Companies to
hold in mortmain whatever lands, &c., the Irish Society or
others should be iviUing to grant to them. In the preamble
they are praised in a measure for what they have already
done " to effect and bring to end the said pious and worthy
"work."(")
This was followed by grants from the Irish Society to Grants by the
the twelve Companies of the lands allotted to them, by t" the
erecting manors and then granting feoffments. (This was Companies,
changed into a lease and re-lease after the new charter of
Charles II.)(''') All the grants, and the new ones in the
reign of Charles II., contained a reservation of the timber
and other building materials, as well as the rights of fish-
ing, fowling, hunting, and hawking.W and some, but not
all, reserved a quit-rent, and all contained a reservation of
a right of re-entry if the conditions of the grant were
violated.
That the Companies were, and were intended to be, TheCompanies
Trustees is clearly proved— ist. By the fact that the licence ^'""^'^^^■
only permitted them to receive from the Irish Society
what the Society should be zvilling to grant, &c. ; i.e., they
were not given a right to claim anything whatever, they
were not treated as having made a purchase, as they now
assert. 2nd, The Irish Society imposed on them the
conditions of the Plantation, reserving not merely what the
Charter required to be reserved, but several other rights
and privileges. 3rd (perhaps most important of all). The
Irish Society were themselves Trustees (as has been proved
above), and therefore could not convey the lands freed from
the Trusts ; they could not, in fact, grant more than they
(a) Case for Respondents, the Irish Society, p. 28. Appendix to Case for
Respondents, pp. 327, &c.
(b) Case for Respondents, the Irish Society, p. 28.
(c) Appendix to Case for Respondents, pp. 335, 338 ; Case for Appellants,
in the Lords, pp. 264, 270, 275, 280, 285-286, 289, 293-294, 299, 305, 310.
B
1 8 London and Londonderry. •
themselves possessed, and they actually granted less,
reserving certain specified powers for the benefit of the
Plantation. 4th, The Companies themselves implicitly
recognised their fiduciary position, when underletting, by
requiring their undertenants to perform the conditions of
the Plantation,(<') and all covenants made with, and regu-
lations of, the Irish Society.
TheLondoners Full particulars of the proceedings of the Londoners for
transgressing, the next eight years are not preserved, but there is abun-
dant evidence that they again showed themselves more
anxious for their personal gain than for the fulfilment of
the trusts committed to them. We find in this interval
the Irish Society beginning in 1623 the evil practice of
dividing the "surplus" of the "undivided estate " among
the Companies. This was at first probably under the mis-
taken notion of recouping the contributories for the tax
laid upon them (which was augmented from time to time,
as we find in the days of Charles I. the amount expended
on the Plantation by the City variously estimated from
;^ 1 30,000 to iJ" 1 50,000) ; but as the Companies added the
money to their corporate funds, never repaying one farthing
to their members that were taxed, this was sheer robbery
of the Plantation. But we find that in 1620 an infor-
mation was laid against the Londoners for neglect to
carry out the works required, and that sequestration was
granted.!''') This does not appear to have been enforced, but
it is important as proving the proceedings under Charles I.
not to have been arbitrary, as has been sometimes alleged.
Again, in 1624, 2nd June, there were read at a Court of
Common Council complaints from the Privy Council of
defects in the work done, one item being that the 4,000
acres had not been laid to Derry and the 3,000 to Cole-
raine as required ;(<") and the Common Council had the
audacity to reply (in the teeth of the Articles of Agree-
(a) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 328, in lease to II. Gary from the
Skinners' Company.
{/') Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 132.
(<■) Case for .-\ppellants, in the Lords, p. 77.
TJue Golden Age of the Plantation. 1 9
ment) that they were not bound to pass the 4,000 acres,
but had in favour allotted 1,500, and would allot more to
houses as they should be built, and they admitted that
Coleraine had received only 500 acres.i*^) That is, the two
towns had hQcn plundered of part of their lands since 1616,
for in that year Messrs. Probie and Springham certified
that Derry had already to the Mayor and houses 3,217
acres, and for a free school 300 acres, and that Coleraine
had 1,826 acres, with Sir Randall M'Donnell's promise to
make this up to 2,260 acres.('^)
With this terminated the efforts of King James to keep The first
the Irish Society and the Companies in the path of duty charies i.
towards the Plantation. The reign of his successor,
Charles I., was more stirring, and the leading transac-
tions are of transcendent importance for the present day.
Articles senf: by His Majesty's special direction from the
Privy Council were read at a meeting of Common Council
on 27th May, 1625, of which the following are of special
significanccC-^) " (9) The lands to be past, some in free-
" hold, some in leases for lives, and none for years certain,
" thereby debarring them from transferring their estates to
" other men, and so depart from their holdings and from the
" kingdom, we wish the rent were made certain by the acre,
"according to the goodness thereof. (13) That every of the
" twelve Companies do make six freeholders of one Balliboe"
{i.e. 60 acres) "at least upon every portion, and ten lease-
" holders for lives to whom they are to set lands, to the free-
'^ holders for ninepence English the acre, and to the leases for
" tiuelvepence the like money, so as they cannot resume or reserve
" as much as shall serve for the freeholders and leaseholders at
" the rent aforesaid . . . the rest of their lands they may
" set for lives to the natives who are conformable in religion
" withus.and shall take the oath of allegiance and supremacy,
" learn our language, wear our fashion of apparel, and resort
(a) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. 78. (/') Hid. p. 76.
[c) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. 80 ; Appendix to Case for
Respon<:ents, p. So.
20
LondoJi and Londonderry.
Fair Rent
Fixed.
" to our churches . . . cind for this favour ihcy may be
" iudjici'd to doiiblc their nuts, as other undertakers %vho have
" broken titcir condition of Plantation are to dj." We have
here the principle of a fixed fair rent laid down plainly,
showincf that this is not an innovation of the nineteenth
century, but a partial restoration of the original objects of
the Crown. To tlie gth the Common Council answered
that it was at present impracticable, but would be obeyed
as soon as circumstances allowed.(") To the 13th it was
answered that the freeholders were already established as
required, and the leaseholders on one estate at rents less
than that commanded ; that the other Companies could
not obey at present, having let their lands at long terms,
but would obey when practicable ; and it was petitioned
that they should not be required to charge the conforming
natives the double rent.C^') [A strange case indeed, land-
lords anxious (seemingly) to obtain low rents ! ! ! None of
the Companies have shown such anxiety in recent times.]
The transgressions of the Irish Society and of the
Companies appear to have continued as before, for in
163 1(') an information was laid in the Court of Star
Chamber by the Attorney-General for repealing the
Charter [on grounds mentioned in the Judgment of the
Star Chamber and the scire facias (to be afterwards quoted)]
against the Corporation of the City of London. A second
information'^) was laid in 1632, joining the Irish Society,
on which a fine of ^^70,000 was imposed, and the letters
patent of March 161 3 ordered to be cancelled. The estates
not being surrendered, a third informationW was laid, in
which the Companies also were joined, and a commission
of inquiry into the lands, &c., was issued out of the Court of
The judgment Exchequer. A writ oi scire facias w&s a\so \ss,ug6. out of
Chamber and ^^^ Court of Chancery, and judgment given in Hilary, 1637
\h<:icin'/adas. (q\^ Style), that the letters patent of 29th March, 161 3, and
[a) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. 80. (/') Jlu'd. p. Si.
(f) Case for Appellants, p. 13 ; Apjiendix to Case for Respondents, p. 136.
[d) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 136 ; Case for Appellants, p. 14.
{e) Appendix, &:c., p. 136 ; Case for Appellants, p. 14.
The three
informations
in the Star
Chamber.
Ike Golden Age of the Plantation. 2 i
the enrolment thereof, be cancelled and annulled/") and
the premises granted to the Irish Society seized into the
hands of the King.
Technically speaking, the judgment of scire facias and ri eciiarges
that of the Court of Star Chamber are two distinct docu- Corporation of
ments ; but in dealing with the same subject-matter, and in J-ondon, the
, Irish society,
their practical legal effect, they are one, and as such must be and thetwche
here considered. The charges they bring against the Lon- in the two'
doners, and for which they declare the Charter annulled, and J^'^g™^"'''-
the estates estreated, are chiefly the following: — ist, Unduly
and deceitfully obtaining the letters patent, "under pretence
"of a due oteervance of the articles ;"('''.' 2nd, Obtaining
more land tfian it was the King's intention to grant('^J
(97,000 acres of fertile land, instead of 27,000), the rents
mentioned being "one hundred and ninety-three pounds,
■"eight shillings and fourpence, and no more;"(') 3rd, The
neglecting to plant with English and inland Scots, and
illegally leaving many of the "mere Irish" (names being
given) in possession of the lands ;('/) 4th, Rack-renting of an
atrocious type. " Their Agents ... do still continue
"the natives upon the said Plantation, and paid the Fines
^' imposed upon them, according to the said Proclamation, for
" not departing from the British undertaken Lands, because
" they luoiild give greater Rents for tlic said Lands than the
" British zccre able to make and live upon, and did prefer the
" Irish before the English, because they pretended they were
" more serviceable unto them, by which means, AND BY THEIR
"EXCESSIVE RAISING THE RENTS FROM FORTY SHILLINGS
"AND FIFTY SHILLINGS A BALLIBOE, UNTO TEN POUNDS,
"TNVELVE POUNDS, AND TWENTY POUNDS AND THIRTY
■" POUNDS A BALLIBOE, the English were and are much dis-
■" heartened, and the natives do far exceed the British, &c.;"('')
(«) Appen<lix to Case for Respondents, p. 137 ; Case fur Appellants, p. 14
(giving (late 1638).
{b] Scire faciaSy Appendix, &c., p. 419; Judgment of Star Chamber, Case
for Appellants, p. 194.
(r) Scire facias, Appendix, &c., p. 422. (d) llnd. pp. 422 424.
{e) Judgment of Star Chamber ; Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. 196.
2 2 London and Londonderry. -
5tli, Spoliation of the Plantation and fraud on the Crown
by cutting down the woods for mercJtandisc instead of for
Plantation purposes to the extent of one million oaks, two
thousand elms, and two hundred thousand ash trees, of the
value of ;^5 50,666 13s. 4d.(") (Minor charges of neglecting
building houses, fortifications, and schools, and other
breaches of the Articles, are here passed over ; but it is
noteworthy that none of these was ever denied by anyone on
bcJuilf of cither the Irish Society or the Companies^
During the course of these proceedings a petition to the
King was adopted by the Court of Common Council for
pardon, offering i^ioo.ooo in five yearly instalments as the
price thereof, on 23rd January, i636.(''') This was renewed
on the last day of p-ebruary, 1636, with the statement that
the City could not compel the Companies to surrender the
lands,(') and renewed several times afterwards. P'inally, on
22nd June, 1637, the King accepted the surrender of all
the grants and a fine of i, I2,ooo.("') The City had sought,
when offering to purchase their pardon, to have the lands,
&c., secured to them "by absolute grants, discharged from
" all pretences of the A rticles of Plantation, and all other
" Covenants and Claims whatsoevcr"(^') [a truly modest de-
mand from petitioners for pardon ! ! !] ; and again, "That they
" be discharged of all trusts and expectation of surplusage
" and other pretences upon the Royal Contract."(') These
demands were not conceded, but on i8th October, 1638,
the King (having been paid the iJ" 12,000, and received the
The Kings surrender of the lands, &c.) issued a pardon for the ^^70,000
pardon, 1638. ^^^^ ^^^ released the Corporation, the Irish Society, and
the Companies, from all trusts respecting the Plantation,(/)
obviously on the just ground that they had no longer the
lands, &c., to which the trusts attached. His Majesty (in
all other respects worthy of all praise in these transactions)
neglected, however, to order restitution of the immense
(a) Si'irefiiiias, Appendix, &c. , p. 429.
(/') Appendix, &c.,p. 201. (< ) Il'id. p. 202. (</) //'/</. p. 205.
(e) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, p. S4.
(f) Case for Respondents, tlie Irish Society, ]i. 31.
The Golden Age of the Plantation. 2
o
sum of which the Plantation and the Crown had been
defrauded by the destruction of the woods.
The next event of importance was the condemnation of
the sentence of the Court of Star Chamber by the House
of Commons in October, i64i.(«) The principal grounds
of this condemnation were : That the King was not de-
ceived ; that the citizens were not bound by the Articles
of Plantation (a manifest falsehood) ; that there was no
proof of grants of leases to " Popish recusants," or of
several other charges (N.B. — These charges are not
denied, but the judgment is censured for not containing
the proofs!); that there was no sufficient ground for The condem-
forfeit, the breach of covenant not being a crime (a curious H^lSeof '^^
piece of law, when the covenants were trusts imposed by Commons,
the Crown in giving the grants !) ; that the Court of Star
Cliamber was not the proper court (forgetting that the judg-
ment of scire facias emanated from the Court of Chancery,
with the assistance and concurrence of Judges of the other
Courts); that the sentence against two Corporations
aggregate was unlawful, no particular person being
guilty; and it was added, as a clause, "tliat the citizens
" of London, and all those against whom the judgment is
" given in scire facias, shall be discharged of that judgment"
(no reason being given for this whatever, nor any fault, of
jurisdiction or otherwise, being alleged against the scire
facias, or the judges who pronounced it).
Now the facts, as briefly narrated before, and the The charges
circumstances of the case, prove most emphatically that be tru°^^ *°
ALL the charges brought against the Companies, and
against the Irish Society (for their dereliction of duty,
except in the case of the two towns), were well-founded
and true. Only the first (and perhaps by implication the
second) was actually denied.
As to the first, that the Charter was unduly obtained The Charter
(denied by the statement that the King had not been obuilfed in the
sense stated.
(a) Case for Appellants, in the Lords, pp. 93, 94; Appendix, &c.,
pp. 210-211.
24
London and Londonderry.
Obtaining
more land than
was intended
by the King.
Neglect to
plant with
British.
Rack-rent-
ing : a new way
of performing
a promise.
deceived), the words of the scire faciasi") show the sense
in which this is to be understood — " Under pretence of a
" close observance of the Articles aforesaid." The violation
of the Articles, implicitly admitted by the plea that the
citizens were not " tied " to observe them, sufficiently
establishes this charge.
The second charge, of obtaining more land than was
intended by the King (not denied except by way of impli-
cation), is proved by two preceding authorities, though
neither agrees with the exact extent of the fraud as stated
in the scire facias. The accuser of 1612 (probably Sir
Thomas Phillips), says — "The rent that the King shall
"receive from them, according to the survey, will be £\C>0
"per annum,"(''') which, at .;^5 6s. 8d. per 1,000 acres, would
make the total amount of arable land 30,000 acres only.
Pynnar's survey, on behalf of the Crown, in 1618-1619,
gives the amount of arable land for each of the twelve
Companies 3,210 acres.O) or 38,520 acres in all. Now this
was six years after the grant of the Charter, and three
years after the licence to hold in mortmain, so it is evidence
only as to the land then in possession of the Companies.
While confirming the scire facias, therefore, as to the fact,
it does not disprove it as to the extent of the fraud. But
the fact is all that is required to justify the charge.
The third charge, of neglecting to plant with English
and inland Scotch, and leaving many of the mere Irish in
possession, is proved by the fact of its never having been
denied, and by the letter of Mr. G. Canning before referred
to.{'^)
The charge of rack-renting, with its results and objects,
never having been denied, must be taken as proved from
the very silence of the accused. It is confirmed, moreover,
by the letter of the accuser of 16 12, "for which they
" already receive near hand i^2,6oo per annum, which will
" daily increase,"^ and is at all events rendered credible by
{a) Si ire /at/as, .\ppendix, &c., p. 419.
(/') Hill's riantation in Ulster, p. 421. (c) Ihid. jip. 576-579, 5S1-587.
(1/) Ibid. p. 443. ((.') //'/(/. p. 421.
The Golden Age of the Plantation.
-D
the subsequent rack-renting (of which evidence will be
furnished later on), and by the reply of inability to execute
King Charles' 13th order in full. This is a strange way of
fulfilling the promise made to the King in 1C25 to charge
the freeholders only ninepence English per acre, and the
leaseholders only twelvepence, the natives (conforming;
paying only double, especially on the part of gentlemen
who were anxious not to be required to exact such high rents
from the native tenants ! ! ! No wonder cynical critics
speak of the age of hypocritical cant as already set in. Of
course the enormity of this offence can only be, realized by
taking together the King's 13th order for rents varying
from ninepence per acre to two shillings at most, the reply
promising compliance, and the fact stated in the judgment
of Star Chamber {a fact never denied), of rents being
raised from forty and fifty shillings a Balliboe to as high
as even thirty pounds. This proved an enticing example for
I lie darker age that followed.
The fifth charge is also proved by the absence of denial, Thesp( liation
and corroborated by the fact that the woods/ have com- '^ ^^ ""^ ^'
pletely disappeared long since.
But apart altogether from the question whether all the Tiie Kings
charges were well founded, there was nothing arbitrary or Siot'aTbi'trary,
unjust in the King's resuming a grant, given subject to'"^''"^'-
trusts, which had been either violated or inefficiently
executed. This is proved — ist, By the necessity under
which King James I. was of interfering by the strongest
threats to compel the grantees to fulfil their engagements ;
2nd, By the information and sequestration of 1620. Of
course this sequestration was not actually carried out ;
because the King, in his tenderness for the interests of the
tenants, did not wish to punish the delinquents, but to hold
it over them in tcrrorem to compel them to greater activity
and faithfulness in the future ; 3rd, By the claims made on
behalf of the Crown by the Attorney-General in iSsS.^'^)
In fact, the action of Charles I. was simply resuming a con-
(«) Case for the Responclenls ; Case of the Attorney-General, pp. lo, II.
26 London and Londonderry.
ditional grant from the Crown, the conditions of which had
been grossly and systematically violated by the grantees.
The close of With the energetic proceedings of King Charles I. and
Age. his advisers, the earnestness of the Crown to compel the
fulfilment of the trusts, or exact the penalty in case of
failure, abruptly ceases. Henceforth, for a period of not
much less than two centuries, " Ichabod — the glory is
" departed " may be written of the action of the Crown.
The Corporation of London were already in a dead sleep,
as far as controlling the Companies was concerned, while
their deputed representatives — the Irish Society — had
shown many strong indications of the vices and weakness
of the period of the Babylonish Captivity.
The Babylonish Captivity. 27
SECTION II.
THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY.
The rc-grant by Oliver Cromwell in 1650 need not be dealt
with, as it was treated as a nullity after the Restoration ; but
in 1662 a fresh Charter was granted by Charles II., of which The Charter of
,, . . . , . , ^. f Charles II.
an inspexiimis copy in 1665 is in existence, a translation 01
which was put in in evidence in the case of the Skinners'
Company v. the Irish Society. The preamble of this
Charter, after referring to that of James I., and mentioning
the judgments, and the consequent resumption of the lands,
refers to an intention of Charles I. to restore the letters
patent of James I. exactly as they stood before the legal
proceedings. This intention the new Charter purports to
carry into effect. There are some variations between the
two Charters, which are of two classes : — ist, Merely tem-
porary arrangements, whether of definite privileges, such
as the more particular control of the city of Derry by the
Irish Society for ten years, or of express trusts already
completed, such as the maintenance of Culmore Fort for a
definite period (for which a fixed and permanent money
payment was now substituted), are omitted ; and, 2nd,
Temporary trusts or privileges unexpired are appointed
for such shortened period as will cover the period contem-
plated in 161 3. (Besides, greater powers of government
are in some cases reserved to the Crown.) All this only
proves the care taken by Charles II. and his advisers to
restore matters exactly as they stood under the Charter of
James I. The Irish Society was(«) restored with precisely The Irish
the same powers of government and management as in f^ored
161 3, and, as then, the first members were appointed in the
Charter itself, the method of election (half each year)
restored as before.W and the same mandatory clause of
(«) Appendix to Cise for Respondents, pp. 2lS, 219. (/') Ibid. p. 220.
28
London and Londonderry.
Re- grant of
lands, &c.
ICffect of til
Charter.
The great
mistake of
both Kings.
removaK'O in case of death, departure, or misconduct — "we
"will to be removable and removed" — was re-enacted.
the The same lands, &c , as before, under precisely the same
conditions, and with the same reservations of quit-rent,
were granted to the restored Irish Society,(''') and the same
government and privileges granted to the city of London-
derry, with the same covenants for further assurance, the
only important variation being that in several places
"granted" was altered to "granted and coitfinued," thus
directly recognising the Charter of James I. as the sole
basis and foundation of the new Charter,
s It is clear from all this that all the trusts existing under
the original Charter of James I. sprang up afresh, ipso
facto, of their own strength, under the Charter of Charles
II. It follows at once that the Conditions and Orders,
Motives and Reasons, and Articles of Agreement remain
in force as interpreting and explaining the new Charter,
although they are not expressly referred to, and they were
rightly treated as still in force by the Counsel for the
Respondents in the great Chancery suit. It may also be
fairly inferred that the celebrated 9th and 13th Orders of
Charles I., in 1625, still remained binding (except so far as
the changed value of money may warrant modifications).
That Charles II., more anxious for his ease and pleasures
than for the fulfilment of the duties or enforcing the rights
of his Royal office, should have made mistakes, is not
strange. But it does appear surprising that King James
I. and his advisers (among whom were men of such
distinguished abilities and wisdom as Lord Bacon and
the great ]5urleigh) should have failed to realize the
total unfitness of a body so constituted and elected as
the Irish Society to manage the important interests of the
Plantation. The original mistake, of course, lay with the
Corporation of London ; but it is astonishing that it was
reserved for the nineteenth century to discover (or at least
definitely express) the fundamental objections to such a
plan : —
{a) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 221. [Ji) lliid. pp. 254-306.
The Babylonish Captivity. 29
1st, The government from London, which necessitates 7 he Irish
all the active management to be by an Agent, who, from necessarily
want of authority, could not interfere with sufficient [orXi'r''dutL.
promptitude to check malversation on the part of the
Companies.
2nd, The total inability of a large body, half of whose
members are changed annually, to understand the circum-
stances of the Plantation so fully as to resolve on and carry
out the best measures for its well-being and prosperity.
3rd, The heavy expenses of mere management necessi-
tated by an absentee body of rulers.
4th, The danger of the Society, meeting in London, and
likely to be largely recruited from the twelve great Com-
panies, becoming merely the tool of those under-grantees
whom it was their right and duty to control, so as to keep
them to the due fulfilment of their trusts.
Retaining, as before, the ferries, fisheries, and town lands The lands
under their own direct management, the new Irish Society [heCompanies
forthwith reconveyed the divided lands to the Companies,
adopting the method of lease and release to save time and
expense, and making the same reservations as before ; thus
once more recognising that they were Trustees, and con-
veyed to the Companies subject to the Trusts of the
Plantation.
Dark days, however, followed at once. Even before the The Down
interference of the Law Courts in the reign of Charles L, ''^ *""
the City of London appears to have given undue recogni-
tion to the Companies in electing the members of the Irish
Society, and from the renewal of the Charter up to 1830 or
1 83 1, the Corporation uniformly elected members of the
Companies to the position, so that the Irish Society became
practically a Committee of the Companies, servants of those
whom they ought to have controlled (for of course the two
permanent members, the Governor and the Recorder of
London, would be utterly powerless to thwart the will of
the elected twenty-four). It thus became both the interest
and the pleasure of the members of the Society to abandon
30 London and Londonderry.
all efforts at controlling the Companies, if any such had
ever been put forward, and even to transfer to these bodies
as much as possible of the funds that they ought to have
employed for public purposes alone. We have not full
information as to the exact year the division of the
"surplus" among the Companies first began, owing to
the destruction of some of the Irish Society's books by fire,
but there is evidence that it was not long delayed. Thus
we have the admission of the Irish Society and the Cor-
poration of the city of London, " that the said Society has,
"from time to time since the date of the said letters patent
" of King Charles II., and whenever there has been any such
"surplus as aforesaid, made payments in tl\e nature of divi-
" dends, on the principle aforesaid, to each of the said twelve
"principal Companies in respect of the said surplus."!")
That is, members of the Companies, for the benefit of the
Companies, plundered the city of Derry and the town of
Coleraine, by distributing for their own corporate fund a
"surplus" that could not have existed if the trusts binding
on the Society had been faithfully carried out. But this
was only the beginning of the "mistaken views" of their
duty that characterized the Irish Society during the dreary
period of the Companies' ascendancy. The City of London
neglecting duty wholly, and the Crown having ceased to
pay any attention to the affairs of the Plantation (an
inaction which, following the evil example of Charles II.,
continued till the time of the great Chancery suit), the
Companies, of course, did as they pleased with the lands
given to their management, regarding them simply as a
means of making money, in addition to the spoils handed
Theiudslet ^^^'^ '-'^ ^'^^ Irish Society. The lands were let to middle-
to middlemen, men by some of the Companies on leases for lives or terms
of years, the leases falling in at different times in the early
part of this century; while others sold the lands as soon as
they could find purchasers to their satisfaction. In the
lettings to middlemen (always for a heavy fine, the least
{a) Appendix to C.ise for ResiJondents, p. 54.
The Babylonish Captivity. 3 1
being ^16,000, and a moderate yearly rent, though far
above the standard of the 13th Order of Charles I.) we find
in all casesW the lessee bound to observe the conditions of
the Plantation, and all conditions and covenants imposed
by the Irish Society ; though, as no measures seem to have
been ever taken to secure the fulfilment of this condition,
it can only be regarded as a formal clause intended to save
the Companies from any violation by their lessees of the
trusts to ufhich they still found it necessary in practice
to admit that they themselves were subject. The monies
obtained were, of course, added to the corporate property,
and the work of further rack-renting was left to the
middlemen, who do not, however, appear immediately to
have oppressed the tenants, except in the case of Stewart
of Ards, to whom the Mercers' estate was let in 175 1, and
that of Ogilby, who held from the Skinners.(''') As, during
nearly all the period on which we have now entered, the
action of the Companies was mainly confined to the
reception of money, without any attempts at management
for good or for evil, the chief topic of interest will be the
proceedings of the Irish Society, which we shall find, with
scarcely a break, going on from bad to worse under the
guidance of the Compani'es.
After the resumption of the lands by Charles I., the Oppression
notorious Bishop Bramhall of Derry contrived to get into ror^ration of
his hands the 1,500 acres left to the Corporation (out of '-°"'i°"'^^"7-
pretended favour) by the Irish Society out of the 4,OCO
commanded by James I. to be assigned. The Corporation
were compelled to pay him rent for these lands, being then
unable to contend with so powerful a foe, or to obtain pro-
tection from the then abolished Irish Society. After 1662
the new Irish Society entered into a protracted litigation
with the Bishop, which was compromised by an Act of Par-
liament, the lands given up, and a fixed payment to the ■•
Bishop agreed onW of ;^250 per annum. The Corporation
(a) See the Skinners' lease to Henry Cary, 1742, Appendix, &c., p. 352.
[b) See evidence of Robert Stuart, Kilrea, 1882.
(f) Report of Commissioners on Municipal Corporations in Ireland, 1S54.
32
London and Londonderry.
Loans from
Companies,
1689.
Still
descending.
The lowest
deep.
immediately applied to the Irish Society for the lands
(really their own), offering ^140 lo^. per annum as rent.
The Irish Society refused, insisting on ;^200 a-year, and the
insertion of a clause to the effect that the only title of the
Corporation luas derived froj/t this letting; thus setting at
nought the arrangements of King James, and despoiling
the Corporation of Derry of the last fragment of their 4,000
acres — except the Sheriff's Mountain (waste), for which
they imposed rent {£2'Si per annum) for the first time in
l820.(")
tiie However, the Irish Society did not pretend that they
were not Trustees for the benefit of the city (and the town
of Coleraine), for we find them, in 1689, borrowing money,
with the sanction of the Common Council, from the Com-
panies, ^100 from each, for the repair of the houses ruined
by the siege,(''') which was repaid with interest a few years
after. But on 9th June, 1692, " R. Rochfort and D. Cairnes
"were appointed by the Society as Commissioners to adopt
" the best measures for rebuilding Londonderry, and grant-
" ing leases."(< ) That is, the Society, instead of rebuilding
themselves, held out inducements to the almost ruined in-
habitants to do so. In strange contrast to the fair promises
of this time is an entry of 15th September, 17 13. " It was
" made a standing order of the Society that no leases should
" be renewed until within three years of their expiration."('')
To this rule, so admirably adapted to retard progress,
was added another of similar character in 1733, 12th
October. " The Society resolved not to grant any leases
" for a longer period than forty-one years, or three lives
" certain, except in cases of new building, and then for sixty-
"one years ;"(') followed on 29th March, 1734, by "The
" Society, at this period, did not consider themselves bound
" to respect any tenants' rights to renewal, and in many
" cases accepted the proposals of strangers ;"(/) and on 12th
(a) Report of Commissioners on Municipal Corporations in Ireland, 1854.
{l>) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 212.
(c)Conciso View, 1822, p. 77. {</) /i/ii. p. 8g. (f )//'/</. p. 106. (/)//'/</. p. 107.
The Babylonish Captivity. 33
December, 1752, "The Society directed that all lands and
" houses then out of lease should be advertised, in order to
" ascertain their true value."('^)
Here we have rules of practice fully established by the
Companies-ridden Irish Society, as well adapted to retard
the progress of the city as the ingenuity of man could
devise, and totally opposed to the principles that prevail in
all important and improving cities and towns; viz. — ist.
Short and terminable leases only ; 2nd, Refusing renewal
until within three years of expiration ; and 3rd, Disregard-
ing all the just claims of tenants for renewal, or repayment
of outlay, and giving preference to strangers who will pay
the Society more iox \}[vq. property erected by the industry of
the ousted occupiers. Could landlordism possibly take a
mere oppressive form ? The effects were so marked in the
decay of the city, that in 1766, on the recommendation of a faint
Alderman Alsop's Committee, it was deemed necessary to |f iight!^
offer leases in perpetuity. The conditions, however, showed
the spirit of greed to be still alive, as they involved an
increase of rent by 20 per cent, clear of all deductions,
the payment of one year's rent, so increased, or in case of
six months' delay, two years' rent, as a fine every seven >
years, or at the fall of every life, the holding every life three
years absent from Great Britain and Ireland to be dead,
and a fee on each renewal of three guineas to the Secre-
tary,('^) this fee being afterwards shuffled in as additional
rent.
The Corporation had long held under the Irish Society Rack-renting
what were called the "Common Holdings," including the fn 1820!^^^
ferry over the river Foyle, at the rent of £^,2 3s. 4d. Irish.
The lease having expired in 1820, part of these holdings
was severed by the Society, and for the rest (exclusive of
the ferry, leased for ^20 in perpetuity in 1790) the rent of
£6qo British (! ! !) was imposed, including the £2% now
first charged for the Sheriffs Mountain, this latter being a
(a) Concise View, 1822, p. 119.
(i) Minute of Irish Society, 30th August, 1766.
34
London and Londonderry.
Education
neglected.
Gratuities to
employes and
others.
distinct usurpation.('0 In 1820, the rent of the Corpora-
tion for the quays, built by the Corporation at a cost of
about £ijfioo, though the Irish Society were h'able for
this improvement, was raised from £6 13s. 4d. to ^350
15S.W
Further, as to education, notwithstanding King James'
requirement that one Free School at least be founded in
every county, we find as late as 1849 no provision whatever
made for this purpose in County Londonderry, although
urgent orders were frequently made on the subject by King
James I.(')
This transformation of Trustees for public purposes (for
so the Irish Society still confess they are) into grasping
landlords over their cestuis que trust, though perhaps the
worst evil introduced under the absolute rule of the Com-
panies (for it has so far proved permanent'), is far from being
the only one. A few others must be briefly referred to,
before passing from this long period of midnight darkness.
Here we have to thank the Skinners' Company for
letting in, however much against their true intention, the
fierce light of publicity on the dark misdeeds of the Com-
panies during their long and undisturbed reign.
The first gratuity on the books is 20 guineas to Mr.
Secretary Coventry in 1675, and 10 guineas to his
secretary('^. and to the secretary, clerk, and officer of the
Society, ^22 in all. In 1678 we find ;^40O voted to Mr.
Davis, in addition to his account^) and in the same year
;^50 to the secretary, and ^20 to his assistant, besides their
salaries. In 168 1, £60 to the secretary, and ^20 to his
clerk.C/) In 1682, 40 guineas to Mr. Davis. In 1683, 60
guineas to Mr. Davis,(/) besides several other smaller
(a) Report of Commissioners on Municipal Corporations in Ireland, 1854.
(i5) See " Duties of Irish Society in reference to the Port and Harbour of
Derry ;" The City and Liberties of Londonderry and the Irish Society, 1854,
P- 23-
(c) Return to the House of Commons, August, 1849.
(d) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 363.
(e) Ibid. p. 364. (/) Ibid. p. 365.
The Babylonish Captivity. 35
gratuities. In 1692, again, we find gratuities to R. Roch-
fort(<^) and several minor employes; and in February, 1794,
£2i,Q to the secretary, and ^50 to his officer, with the
intimation that these were the same as the gratuities of the
previous year.C'''') Doubtless, the complete books, if avail-
able, would show many more cases, for it is not probable
a system continued from 1675 to 1696 was suddenly inter-
mitted till 1793.
The gross abuse of the Trustees paying themselves out Trustees
of the Trust funds for attendance at Courts and Committees [he'ms^ives
appears to have been first introduced in 1682, at all events ^rformance(')
that is the date of its being first publicly recorded. On of their duties.
13th October of that year it was resolved that 40s. be
divided among those who make a Court, and 20s. among
those that make a Committee, the Governor to have a
double share, and the Deputy a share and a-half (^) The
evil thus began on a comparatively modest scale, but it
soon assumed larger proportions. We find in 1683, £},6
ordered to be paid to members; in 1684, £z^; in 1685,
;^33; in 1686, ^38 ; in 1687, £\\ ; in 1692, £z^g; in 1693,
^52 ;W in 1734, ;^283; in 1735, ^^175; in 1736, £171.^'^)
This malpractice has continued, and we find the sums
vastly increased in more recent times. Thus we find in the
accounts of the Society from 1825 to 1832 inclusive the item
" Allowances to Members" set down as .^308 in 1825 ; in
1826, £264; in 1827,^^228; in 1828,^^473 los. ; in 1829,
£So6 15s.; in 1830,^^424; in i83i,i;'6i5 los,; and in 1832,
£S93 iSs.W However, the General Statement of Receipt
and Expenditure presented by the Secretary for the year
1877 shows only £^yi 19s, under this head, so that perhaps
the light of publicity may be introducing a partial improve-
ment. But the practice of Trustees paying themselves out
of the Trust fund is repugnant to all principles of law and
equity, even if it were not the fact that much of their
(a) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 384.
(i) Ibid. p. 396. {c) Ibid. p. 366. {d) Ibid. p. 396.
(e) Case for Appellants, p. 250.
36
London and Londonderry.
conduct has been a systematic and continuous violation of
their duties as Trustees.
Dinners and
other tavern
expenses.
In May, 1680, we find an order to entertain to dinner at
the expense of the Society {i.e., of the Trust money, for the
Society has no income but that derived from the Trust
property) Lord Massereene and his son, "with 'such
"others as his Lordship shall please to bring with him.''(<^)
In 1689 we find a similar dinner to the Rev. George
Walker and his friendsC''') [and this at a time when money
was required to be borrowed for repairing the ruined houses
of Londonderry !]. In 1696 the Lords Justices and Lord
Chancellor of Ireland were similarly invited ;('•) and in
1698 we find the dinner bill ^^145, of which ^^50 was
ordered to be paid on account.('^ We find also, in 1737,
bills for dinners, &c., audited and ordered to be paid, but
the amounts are not given. W And coming down to more
modern times, we find the item of "Tavern Expenses"
returned in 1825 at ^^576 2s. ; 1826, £266 15s. 6d.; 1827,
;^489 19s. 6d. ; 1828, ^^498 14s.; 1829, ^555 55.; 1830,
;^357 i8s. 4d. ; 1831, £601 13s. 2d.; and 1832, ^^452 14s.
3d.(/) This abuse, too, has proved permanent.
Presentation to On February 3rd, 1737, it was ordered that the picture of
of^^ate^^c. ^^^ Governor should be placed in the Irish Chamber at
the Society's expense.i,?) On April 17th, 1739, it was
ordered that plate of twenty guineas' value be presented
to Alderman William Lecky-C-^) It was also admitted by
the Defendants that plate had been presented in Novem-
ber, 1763, to Alderman Alsop ; and in October, 1765, to
the Mayor of Londonderry, though it was asserted strongly
that none had ever been purchased for the use of the
Society. (0 It was also admitted by the Irish Society that
" when the Society was composed wholly, or for the most
" part, of members of the twelve Companies," pictures were
painted at the expense of the Society — eight in number —
(a) Appendix to Case for Respondents, p. 366. (6) Ibid. p. 367. (r) Ibid.
p. 367. ((/) Ibid. p. 367. {e) Ibid. p. 397. (/) Case for Appellants, in the
Lords, p. 250. {g) Appendix, &c.,p. 397. {h) Ibid. p. 398. («) Ibid. p. 59.
The Babylonish Captivity. t^J
and it was added that "all such portraits are of members
"of the twelve Companies.'^) These qualifications are un-
questionably true, and the disclosure illustrates the im-
prudence of thieves quarrelling and appealing to law to
settle their differences ; for in .proving these charges against
the Irish Society, and in their admission by the Defendants,
the Skinners' Company, and the other Companies sym-
pathizing with and supporting them, ivcre simply proving
a case of misconduct as Trustees against their own members.
It is pleasant to record, to the honour of the reconsti-
tuted Irish Society, that this particular abuse has not been
perpetuated.
The expenses of Deputations to Ireland, though heavy,
cannot be fairly called an abuse in the same sense as the
previous lines of conduct, as they are part of the necessary
management, though they furnish a strong argument in
favour of the objection that such a body as the Irish
Society are incompetent to exercise their functions econo-
mically. Complaints, however, have often been made from
many quarters, not from the discontented Companies only,
that these Deputations are, and are regarded by the
members as, not journeys for the fulfilment of a public
duty, but pleasant excursions at the expense of the Trust
property ; and this would be a legitimate subject for
inquiry.
It is pleasant to turn from this dreary list of malversa-
tions to another class of actions, unfortunately too few and
on too small a scale, which show a practical acknowledg-
ment of the fact of their Trusteeship by the Society during
this the worst period in their history.
On July 2ist, 1676, was passed a resolution to con- Contributions
tribute part of the cost of the repair of churches, when schoou!^ ^^'
the inhabitants and the ecclesiastics shall have done their t-"harities, &c.
part.C') On November 8th, 1676, an order was made
to pay the schoolmaster's salary (of free school),('') and
on May 26, 1682, an additional allowance of twenty
{a) Appendix, &c., p. 59. (/■) Ibid. p. 367. {c) Ibid. p. 36S.
38
London and Londonderry.
Support of
Corporation,
&e.
Acknowledg-
ment of trust.
nobles was voted to the master and usher.('0 Oi>
August 15th, 1689,^10 was voted to Joseph Bennett, in
consideration of his poverty, and for services during the
siege ;(''') and on December 14th, 1689, a like sum to Mrs.
Cocken for similar reasons.(') On March 17th, 1694, sixty
tons of timber were voted for repairing the court-house. ("'>
On September 22nd, 1692, iJ^20 a-year was voted to the
usher of the free school ;W and in 1695 and 1696, sums of
money were voted to sufferers from the siege. In 1739,
again, it was voted to build a free school at Coleraine, and
to endow the master during the Society s pleasure.
On April 2nd, 1690, ii^Soo was voted to the Mayor of
Londonderry for the relief of the poor.(/) On December ist,
1690, ;^20 was ordered to be paid to the Mayor, UO and on
July 25th, i695,(''') £\o per annum was directed to be paid
to the Recorder. In 1695(0 it was ordered to bring an
ejectment against the Bishop for the 1,500 acres. (The
unsatisfactory and unjust finale of this has been already
given.) And on December nth, 1789, besides other pay-
ments to charities, &c., ^^90 los. was directed to be paid
to the Corporation of Londonderry.'/') We find also the
following items in the accounts from 1825 to 1832 : —
" Expenses of Schools, Ireland," is returned at ;^478 9s. 3d.
in 1825; 1826, ;^389 4s.; 1827, £66^ los. 9ld. ; 1828,.
;^522 OS. 4d. ; 1829, ^^382 i2s. 8d. ; 1830, ;^439 19s. 9d.;.
1831, ^^438 I2S. 4|d.; and 1832, ^^468 9s. 2d. "Charit-
able Donations, Ireland," are given in 1825 at ^^25 ; 1826,
.1^222 6s. ; 1827, ;^I46 3s. l|d. ; 1828, ^208 9s. 3d.; 1829,
^349 4s- 7^d.; 1830, £195 4s. 7|d.; 1831, i:53o; 1832
(the first year the dividend to the Companies was omitted),
;^I556 IS. 8d.!(^)
All these payments — and no doubt the complete books
would show more of the same type — are gratifying in them-
(a) Appendix, &c., p. 368. {h) Ibid. p. 368. (r) lOid. p. 369. [d) Ibid.
p. 369. \c) Ibid. p. 369. (/) Ibid. p. 369. (a') Bid. p. 369. {h) Ilnd.
p. 369. (/) Ibid. p. 369. (j) Ibid. p. 400. (/!•) Case for Appellants, &c.,,
p 250.
The Babylonish Captivity. 39
selves as contributions to public and charitable objects,
and important as links in the unbroken chain of practical
acknowledgments that the Society are and have always
been Trustees for public purposes. Similar acknowledg-
ments on the part of the Companies will be given further
on.
40
London and Londonderry.
SECTION III.
THE DAWN OF ENFRAN'CIIISEMENT.
Abolition of
the perpetual
Curacy.
Interference
in politics.
At last, about the year 1830, the Corporation of the City
of London awoke out of their Rip Van Winkle sleep, and
realized for the first time the absurdity of having the con-
trol of the Companies entrusted to a Committee of the
ruled. It was too late for them to cure the evils already
wrought, but at least the absolute supremacy of the Com-
panies might be brought to a full stop. Fortified by the
opinion of several distinguished lawyers, the Corporation
determined in future elections to admit indiscriminately all
freemen of the City. In the election for 183 1 the great
Companies appear to have been almost ignored, and so
also in that for 1832, the first result being the ceasing of
the division of the " surplus" in the latter year,(«) and since
then the Companies connected with the Irish Estates have
been always kept in a minority, but few of their members
being elected, and in some years none. Before, however,
their ascendancy was completely destroyed, they contrived
to introduce a new abuse, for the first and last time. In
1 83 1, the Governor of the Society, Alderman John Thomas
Thorp, having been nominated as a Parliamentary can-
didate for the borough of Coleraine, the Society petitioned
against the return of Sir J. Brydges, at a cost of £6%}, 2s.
2d., but found it necessary to withdraw the petition.^
Their candidate next year, Alderman Copeland, was
returned on his own petition, but without cost to the
Society.(') This was one of the grounds on which the
Companies charged the Irish Society with misapplication
of the funds, but the blame must be distributed.
[a] Appendix, &c. , pp. 87, 88. (/<) J/'icL p. 79. (c) Il'id. p. 79.
The Dawn of- Enfranchisement. 41
Not merely were the City justified in electing freemen The City right
,. rr 1-1 • 1 • 1 t 1 in their new
indifferently, without considering whether they were mem- departure.
bers of the Companies or not, but it was actually carrying
out a long-neglected duty to exclude the members of the
Companies who had introduced and kept up so many violations
of the Trusts. This is proved by the mandatory provision
in both Charters that members misbehaving " we will to be
" removable and removed.'\'^) But the Companies were, not
unnaturally, dissatisiied at the downfall of their long ascend-
ancy (of which, however, they did not venture to complain
as of a wrong), and still more so at the loss of the spoil
they had so long enjoyed from the rents and profits of the
undivided estate. After a long epistolary negotiation, the
Companies found the Irish Society, for the first time, un-
willing to admit that they had parted with their discretionary
control for the benefit of their under-grantees (practically
it had been for over a centuiy and a-half scarcely
exercised except in delaying dividends, in cases of dispute),
and the Skinners' Company boldly rushed into the breach, chln^^'suu •
filing a bill in Chancery, in which they complained of the The Skinners'
, Company v.
misapplication of the Trust funds of which the Irish Society The insh
had been guilty, while it was a Committee of the Companies "'^'^ ^'
(omitting only the division of the "surplus," which was
treated as a just act, and as giving the Companies a rightful
claim to the Trust property of Londonderry and Coleraine),
and praying that .the Irish Society might be declared
Trustees for the Companies of all the rents and profits of
the undivided property, after the fixed payments and the
necessary expenses of management had been djeducted.l^')
In this notable thieves' quarrel — for, considering the history The thieves'
of nearly two centuries, it was nothing else — all the greater i"^""^-
Companies and the majority of the minor ones were on the
side of the Skinners' Company, as is proved by their
answers,(<") and their supporting the case of the plaintiffs by
(a) Appendix, &c., p. 227.
(/') Case for Appellants, Amended Bill.
((■) Case for Appellants, &c., pp. 254-259.
42 London a7id Londonderry .
their counsel.(«) But none of the other great Companies —
though urged to do so — was imprudent enough to risk its
funds in the venture; all preferred being nominal defend-
ants. Against their will, the Skinners' Company were
compelled to join as defendants the City of London, which
The Crown claimed a paramount authority over both the Irish Society
awa esaso. ^^^^ ^.j^^ Companies, resisting the claim as wholly un-
founded,(''') and also the Attorney-General for the Crown,
which, in the interests of the public, asserted its rights for
the first time since i638-39.('')
All these genuine defendants maintained, and with
success, that the Trusts of the Irish Society were for public
purposes alone. It is noteworthy that the City of London
emphasized the principle, or fact, that no individual benefit
XKjas intended by the King, but the tranquillity of Ireland, arid
the establishment and promotion of the Protestant religion,
The'irust i.e., PUBLIC PURPOSES ONLV.l'O It was the first time the
for public -.,,,. , ,• , , , 1 ■ ,1 1
purposes only, irish Socicty publicly and expressly claimed that they were
Trustees for public purposes only, rejecting the mistaken
viezvs under which they had acted so long ; and the Master
of the Rolls, in his judgment, declared that these mistaken
views " do not vary the conclusion to be deduced front the
" Charters, and the circumstances contemporary zuith the grant
" of the first Charter."{t:) Still it was, perhaps, fortunate for
the public that the Irish Society were able to point to a
continuous series of acts, even during the darkest period of
their history, which proved a tacit recognition by them
all along of the public trusts for which they had been
appointed and incorporated. The only plausible argument
advanced for the Skinners' Company (for the allegation that
the City had been their agents was supported neither by
facts nor by law) was the fact of the division of the "surplus"
(a) Pleadings in Chancery, pp. 363-426, &c.
{b) Case for the Respondents, the Mayor, &c., of London, pp. 6, 7, 20, 22,
38, 40, 43-45, 52, 53.
(c) Case of the Attorney-General, pp. 3-5, 10, 11.
((/) Case for the Respondents, the Mayor, &c., p. 4.
(e) Pleadings, &c. ; the Judgment, p. 1246.
T/ie Dazun of EnfranchisemeJtt. 43
for so long a period, and even here a discretionary power
was established by the circumstance that the dividends had
always been in round numbers, a balance being carried
over. But there is one argument used in terroreni by their TheCompanie:;
Chief Counsel, Sir W. W. Follett, a former Attorney- ^™,^'^*'^'
General for England, which must not be passed over, as it
tells with fatal effect against all the pretensions of the
Companies, seeing that the case was decided against them,
not once, but three times — "If they could convince your
" Lordship that that undivided property was burthened with
" any trust, I do not see but that it must of necessity follow
" that the separated land, the divided land conveyed
" to the Companies, is similarly burthened. . . . I
" cannot distinguisJi between ike one property and the other;
"IF THERE BE A PUBLIC TRUST ON ONE, THERE IS ON
"THE OTHER."('^) An argument on which great stress was
laid, that the trusts were too indefinite for a Court of
Equity to execute them, was completely overthrown by
Sir C. Wetherall for the City — "If the Court itself cannot The power of
" undertake to form such a scheme, and to reduce into remedy*" '°
" precise shape an object too generally expressed, the Crown ;ndefiniteness
" has a right to interfere and direct the appropriation or Trusts.
" distribution by sign manual. Such has long been the estab-
" llshed law."U') The Master of the Rolls expressed his entire
concurrence with this view, and mentioned his practice of
acting on it. The same learned gentleman also laid down
pertinent law and facts of almost greater importance at
the present time — " It is true that the governing body is
" an English Corporation. . . . But Londonderry and
" Coleraine are Irish Corporations, the whole property is The Trusts as
"Irish; everything that was to be done in execution 0/ the p^^^^^iy ^
"Charter, zvas to be done on Irish soil and freeho'd ; the ^"^'^ °"'y-
"enjoyment, the dominium utile, is EXCLUSIVELY in the
" realm of Ireland. Is not the trust, therefore, territorial, as
" well as the property .''V) According to this, the charitable
(a) Pleadings in Chancery, p. 139.
{l>)Il>id. p. 814. {c) Ihid. p. 870.
44
London and Lotidonderry.
QuEM Deus
VULT
PERDERE
PRIUS
DEMENTAT.
Lord
Langdale's
judgment.
donations given in England by the Irish Society, which
appear in all their accounts, are a misapplication of the
trust funds.
The Bill in Chancery was first filed on i6th July, l832,('')
and was first tried on a motion in i835(*) that money should
be paid into the bank by the Irish Society, and a receiver
appointed, and the Irish Society restrained from collect-
ing the rents, &c. This motion was dismissed with costs
by the Lord Chancellor (Pepys) in i836.('') Thence the
Skinners' Company took the case for trial before the
Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, and it was dismissed
with costs as against the genuine defendants.C'^ As though
anxious to secure the highest legal authority in favour of
the rights of the public, and against themselves, the
plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords, and the judg-
ment of the Master of the Rolls was most emphatically
confirmed.^ All along, the Irish Society disclaimed any
beneficial interest in the property.(/)
Lord Langdale, in giving his judgment, after summing
up the evidence, said : — " It is, I think, impossible to read
" and consider the Charter, without coming to the conclusion
" that the powers granted to the Society were more extensive
" than, and very different from, any which in the ordinary
" course of affairs are vested, or would upon this occasion
" have been vested, in mere private Trustees for the benefit
" of particular undertakers-C,?") The powers indeed are, many
"of them, of a public and political nature, and . . . were
" given for the public purposes of the Plantation. . . .
" The Companies of London were, with the burthen of under-
" taking the plantation of such lands as might be allotted to
" them, to receive such benefits as were offered to . . .
"ordinary undertakers." . . . "The Charter of Charles
(a) Case for Respondents, the Mayor, &c. , p. 46. (/') Ibid. p. 46.
(;-) Ibid. p. 46. (d) Ibid. p. 47.
(4 Speech of Mr. I^ea, M.P. for South Londonderry, in the House of
Commons, June 28th, 1S89, p. 10.
{f) See their Case, their Answers, and the Pleadings, passim,
ig) Pleadings, &c., pp. 1232, 1233.
■S ';
The Dawn of Enfranchisement. 45
" appears to me to be substantially, as it is avowedly, a res-
" toration of the Charter of James."('^) " The property is part
" of that granted for the purposes of the Plantation, and the
" powers possessed by the Society, as well as the duties with
" which it is charged, Jiave all of tliem reference to the Planta-
" tioJl."W " I AM OF OPINION THAT THE POWERS GRANTED
"TO THE SOCIETY, AND THE TRUSTS REPOSED IN THEM,
" WERE IN PART OF A GENERAL AND PUBLIC NATURE,
"INDEPENDENT OF THE PRIVATE BENEFIT OF THE COM-
" PANIES OF LONDON, AND WERE INTENDED BV THE
"CROWN TO BENEFIT IRELAND, AND THE CITY OF
" LONDON, BY CONNECTING THE CITY OF LONDONDERRY
"AND THE TOWN OF COLERAINE AND A CONSIDERABLE
" IRISH DISTRICT WITH THE CITY OF LONDON, AND TO
" PROMOTE THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE PLANTATION,
"NOT ONLY BY SECURING THE PERI-'ORMANCE OF THE
" CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON ORDINARY UNDERTAKERS, BUT
"ALSO BY THE EXERCISE OF POWERS AND THE PERFORM-
"ANCE OF TRUSTS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THOSE
"CONDITIONS."^)
On the appeal to the House of Lords, the Lord Chan- The House of
cellor, Lord Lyndhurst, said : — " The result of all these Lyndhurst's'^
" observations is this, that the objects are public and im- judgment, &c.
" portant ; that they were constituted for the purpose of
"carrying those objects into effect; that those objects are
" still in existence ; that the funds of this district are applic-
"able to tl.ose purposes; that they have a discretion to
"exercise as to what extent they will apply those funds,
" and to \)fhat objects. If that be so, my Lords, they are
''public officers, invested with a public trust, having a right
"to apply those funds in discharge of that public trust."
Lord Campbell expressed his opinion in language of equal
strength and force.(<^)
This famous case forms, as yet, the most important Transcendent
importance of
(a) Pleadings, &c., p. 1244. this case.
{b) Ibid. p. 1245. (0 ■^'''"^- PP- 1248, 1249.
((/) Quoted by Mr. Lea, M. P. for South Londonderry, in his speech in the
House of Commons, June 28th, 1889, p. 10.
46 London and Londonderry.
incident in the history of the Plantation since the reign
of Charles I., for the following reasons : —
1st, It has finally established, by the decision of the
highest legal authority in the realm, that the Irish Society
are merely Trustees for public purposes. (This furnishes a
strong support indirectly to the arguments proving the
Companies to be merely public Trustees, though that
question was not in issue.)
2nd, It has finally settled, by the same authority, that
the Trusts of the Irish Society are unexhausted and inex-
haustible. The importance of this point will appear
later on.
3rd, It has let in a flood of light on the management of
the Society, and put the public in possession of valuable
information as regards their rights, which was not readily
available previously.
4th, It has established the rights of the Crown, and has
awakened the Crown from the long apathy engendered by
the selfish indifference of Charles II.
5th, It has brought to light the worst and most gigantic
of the frauds early perpetrated by the Companies, i.e., the
spoiling of the woods to the value of ;^s 50,666 13s. 4d.
6th, It has been the forerunner of the period of inquiry
which ought to end in stripping the Companies of their
ill-gotten spoil, and securing its application to Plantation
purposes, according to the original intention of James I.
oppression still Rampant. 47
SECTION IV.
OPPRKSSIOX STriJ. RAMPANT.
The reform initiated by the City of London in 1830 ended
where it began. The purified Irish Society have, it is true,
increased their contributions to charitable purposes (one
notable example being the founding of a chair in Magee
College, with an endowment of ;^250 a-year, and the gift
of ;^i,ooo to the building fund of that institution), but
some of this is given in England, as will appear from their
accounts. Nor has there been any change for the better in
the harshness of their conduct as landlords, in the matter
of tavern expenses, or in their opposition to measures
calculated to benefit the city or harbour of Londonderry,
though they have, under pressure and the fear of an appeal
to Parliament, granted ^700 per annum to the Corpora-
tion of Derry and ^500 to the improvement of the city,
and now hold themselves (according to the evidence of
Alderman Humphrey, Governor in i854)('2) bound legally
and equitably to continue these, payments for ever ; and
quite recently they seem disposed to contribute large sums
to certain special improvements in the city.
Among the Standing Orders of the Society, dated loth
Feb., 1847, are the following: — 5th. "That no leases be
"granted in perpetuity;" 6th. " That no determinable leases
" be renewed until within three years of their expiration "W —
the very same rules that so endangered the very existence of
the city as to call for the interposition of Alderman Alsop's
Committee in 1766, referred to before. The same spirit is
shown in their opposition to the Leasehold Conversion
Act, and their endeavours to prevent their tenants getting
the benefit of this Act, by threatening legal proceedings
when opportunity offers.
(a) City of London Corporation Commission, p. 24.
(b) City and Liberties of Derry, 1854, p. 25.
48
London and Londonderry.
Expensive
Management.
Legal
Expenses.
" The total expenditure (deducting the permanent pay-
" ments) and costs of management stood to one another
"in the following proportions in the three periods of ten
"years from 1818 to 1847 :^
Expenses of
Management.
44,198
S5>985
" Years.
"1818-27
" 1828-37
"1838-47
" Total,
Total Expenditure
(less permanent payments).
73.416
86,970
i,"2i9,898"(«)
^^133.912
It must be admitted that part of this period was during
the reign of the Companies, but " the expense of manage-
"ment, and the total expenditure less the permanent
"payments, from February 1847 to February 1853, stand as
"follows: — Expenses of management, ;^2 1,161 ; total ex-
"penditure, ;£"50,292. . . . The existing income of the
"Society is stated by Alderman Humphrey, the Governor,
"at about ^^"10,000 a-year; and he estimates the present
"costs of management, including an allowance of .1^600
"for legal expenses, at about iJ^3,ooo a-year. "(''') The
recommendation of the Royal Commission (1854) on the
Corporation of London was, " That the Irish Society be
"dissolved; that its Trusts be declared by Act of Parlia-
"ment ; and that new Trustees be appointed by the Lord
" CIia7icellor of Irelandr
Legal expenses are enormous, but it is difficult to know
their true amount, as it was found by Sir C. E. Lewis,
M.P. for Derry City, in 1876, that much that should come
under this head is concealed by being entered under other
titles ; e.g., the cost of opposition to Port and Harbour Bill
of 1874 (which was passed) was hidden under the item —
"/« aid of Public Lnproveinents — Building Expenses, &c.,
"in Londonderry, Coleraine, and Culmore"!!!W
{a] The Irish Society of London, 1875, p. 13 ; Report of the Royal Com-
mission (1854) on the Corporation of London, &c.
(1^) The Irish Society of London, 1875, pp. 13, 14 ; Report of Royal Com-
mission, &c.
(c) The Irish Society of London, its Expenditure and Account-keeping,
1876, pp. 3-6, 8, II, 12.
oppression still Rampant. 49
As to its practical landlordism, we find the following Treatment
facts among others, sworn in evidence. A tenant in 1832
got a sixty-one years' lease, under which he was bound to
expend L'JS'^, and did so, and afterwards continued his ex-
penditure till it amounted to over £6,000. He applied for an
extension of his lease repeatedly, and in 1847 received the
answer that he would be allowed a further new lease of
fourteen years, on condition of his augmenting his rent
from £\\2 19s. 2d. to £\62 19s. 2d., and giving up all
claims to compensation for buildings and improvements.(<^)
Another tenant, having purchased a farm, applied for an
extended lease, and was offered one for sixty-one years on
condition of expending ;^i,ooo, but it turned out the sixty-
one years was only to apply to twenty acres, and for the
other and larger portion only a twenty-one years' lease
would be given.C''') In Coleraine the matter is not quite in so
bad a condition, most of the lettings having taken place long
since ; but there is strong complaint that the Irish Society
give no contributions to the Town Commissioners, and
nothing to the improvement of the town.W All the
witnesses from Derry and Coleraine, examined in 1854
before the City of London Corporation Commission, gave
the opinion that the Irish Society are quite incompetent
for their duties. It is now time to turn to the Landlordism Landlordism.
of the Companies. Here the evidence available to the
public is far from complete, nor can it ever be so until the
books are compelled to be produced by authority of
Parliament. But there is enough to convict the Companies
of much rack-renting in practice (quite in the teeth of the
13th Order of Charles I. in 1625), and of a desire for much
more.
During the 17th and iSth centuries four of the Companies
sold their estates, tlte Irish Society in each case requiring a
bond of indemnity. i'i) A clear proof that the Irish Society,
(a) City of London Corporation Commission, 1854, p. 6.
(b) Ibid. p. 7. (f) Ibid. pp. 15, 18.
(</) The London Companies' Estates ; Short Statement of their History and
Management.
D
50
London and Londonderry.
Improvements
all made by
the Tenants.
even during the darkest period of its history, fully realized
its responsibility to carry out to the full the purposes of
the Plantation, and enforce their being carried out by its
grantees. (These may, therefore, be left out of considera-
tion for the present.)
The other Companies "demised their estates to middle-
" men by leases. . . . The landlords spent nothing on
"improvements. . . . Lands were drained and reclaimed,
" fences erected, and houses built, solely by the industry and
" with the capital of tenants. . . . The value of the
" Companies' estates at the time of the Plantation was
"estimated to be under ;^i,8oo a-year, while the estimated
"rental of these estates at present is ;^i24,ooo.('') The
"leases to middlemen granted by the other Companies
" expired at various times during the present century. . . .
" The Companies have since, in every case, by pe'riodical re-
" valuations, enormously increased the rental.('''^ ... A farm
" of ninety-six statute acres was held" (on the Fishmongers'
estate) " under the middleman at the yearly rent of £'] los.
" . . . The tenant reclaimed a large part of the farm.
". . . On the Company resuming possession in 1820 the
" rent was raised at a single bound to £'j^ a-year. . . .
"In 18 13 the Skinners' Company leased their estate to
" Robert Ogilby fof a fine of £2'^poQi, and an annual rent of
";^i,500. On resuming possession in 1872 . . . the
" rental was raised to i^ 1 3,000. . . . In 1871 the Cloth-
" makers' Company sold their estate to Sir Hervey Bruce.
"The rent was raised in 1874 in many instances from 30
" to 80 per cent."(')
Rents raised "Between buildings, roads, drains, fences, and re-
improvements. " clamation, the tenants have sunk in permanent improve-
"ments at least ;^io per acre for every acre of arable land
" on the estates, or upwards of two millions in alK'^) The
Rack-renting.
(a) The London Companies' Estates ; Short Statement of their History and
Management.
{/') Ibid. (,■) Ibid.
{(I) Evidence (1S82) of R. II. Todd, LL.D., Solicitor, Derry.
oppression still Rampant. 5 i
" following tables show the valuation and rents of the
" Companies' estates at the various periods : —
■' War.
" 1609
" 1697
"1758
"1858
" 1882
" 1635
" 1727
" 1868
" 1882
' VALUATIONS.
Amounl.
...
.. Z 1,800
...
9,150
20,000
.. 131,000
.. 136,000
"RENTS.
...
• • ^2,190
...
8,000
...
.. 124,000
... ...
.. 160,000
" The Skinners' Company raised the rental by about
';^2,ooo a-year over what the middleman, Mr. Ogilby, had
' been receiving.^
" The Fishmongers' Estate was held by the Beresford
' family, who paid the Company a rent of £\oo yearly, and
' exacted ;^2,ooo a-year from the tenants. The last lease
'. . . expired in 1820. The Company then resumed
' possession, re-valued the estate, and raised the rental to
';^io,ooo a-year. The tenants who had improved most
' were subjected to the largest increases, some being raised
'as much as one thousand per cent.(''')
" The Grocers' Company, whose estate was sold several One good
' years ago, still recognise the public claims on the purchase- '^^^'"f '^•
' money by continuing their contributions towards local
'religious, educational, and public purposes." W
"In 175 1 the Mercers' Company leased their estate to The Mercers'
' Stewart, of Ards, for three lives or sixty-one years, for a °'^P^"y-
'fine of i;"i6,ooo and a yearly rent of /420. The last of
'the lives expired in 1832, when the rent of the estate was
'^10,443. . . . The Mercers, on resuming possession
{a) Evidence (1882) of K. H. To<l<l, LL.D. (b) Ibid, {c) Ibid.
52
London and Londonderry.
Slade's
Narrative.
The Fish-
mongers'
Company.
"of their estate, reduced the rental to .^8,498, or 19 per
" cent, nearly, . . . 1855. The Mercers had a re -valua-
" tion, . . . the valuers being Mr. Saunders and Mr.
" Watney, the latter a member of the Mercers' Company.
"These gentlemen increased the rental to i,"io,26o. . . .
" In 1876 the Mercers sent over Mr. Watney to again value
"the estate. ... . Mr. Watney's valuation was about
"^14,000. . . . The Mercers sent over Lord Selborne
" and three other gentlemen. . . . Lord Selborne issued
" an ultimatum ... all rents raised over 40 per cent.
" would be brought down to 40, with an abatement of eight
"per cent. ; rents raised from 28 per cent, and upwards, an
" abatement of eight per cent. ; rents raised 20 per cent, and
" upwards, no abatement. . . . The tenantry would not
" take these terms. Over sixty received notice to quit, and
" ejectment processes, . . . and decrees granted against
"the whole number. . . . They were put into £%^o
"costs.'^")
Robert Slade's Narrative, 1802, says (of this property)
— " A group of nearly naked figures are often seen at the
"doors, consisting of the wife and children. The husband
" finds the means, by working at his loom, to pay an extra-
" vagant price for four or five acres of land," &c.
In 1872 the Fishmongers' Company proposed to increase
their rents (already higher than the principal estates in the
county) by amounts varying from 12 to 400 per cent, (the
latter being a case where the tenant had reclaimed every
foot of ground in the farm, and erected the buildings at
his own cost). In many cases the increase was over lOO
per cent., and in several over 200 per cent.(''') These
increases would practically have confiscated the tenant-
right. Appendix B to the tenants' memorial shows, by a
comparison with seven adjoining estates, that the Fish-
mongers' estate was let above the Government valuation,,
and the others under that valuation. But enough of these
sad details.
(a) Evidence of Robert Stuart, Kilrea, 1SS2.
{Ji) Memorial to the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, pp. 9-21,
oppression still Rampant. 55
Practically, whatever they may say in terms, all the Practical
Companies have all along acknowledged their Trusteeship mentsor ^
by contributions towards some of the objects specially j^'^lhe"^'''
recommended by James I. — viz., religious and educational, Companies.
by occasional donations to the poor, and by the erecting or
repairing of public buildings. Without going into details,
it is sufficient to quote figures from the returns made by
the Companies to the City of London Liveries Commis-
sion in 1882.
The Mercers' Company return for 1880 the following Mercers'
item : — " Irish estate, including," besides cost of manage- "'"P^^y-
meat, " repairs, tithe, maintenance of schools, drains and
" roads, contributions to places of worship, donations for
"charitable purposes, for benefit of tenants, &c., ;^4,837 I2s.
"9d."('2) Besides this there is the remark(''') — "The Com-
" pany have guaranted a dividend of five per cent. on £ 10,000
"of shares in the Derry Central Railway (which passes
"through their estate) for twenty-three years from i8th
" February, 1880. The Company expect to have to pay the
" amount of their guarantee during the whole period."
The Ironmongers' Company report as to their Irish estate ironmongers'
— " Large sums are expended anniialty on the support of *^°'"P^"y-
" fifteen schools on the estate, in gifts to various charities con-
" nected with it, in exhibitions and grants to colleges, and for
" improving roads, buildings, &c. . . . The Company also
"subscribed ;^200 towards the preliminary expenses of the
" Derry Central Railway, and guarantee five per cent, on
";^ 5,000 of the stock for twenty-three years, if necessary,
" and are now paying it, and they gave the land required for
"the railway without charge, and this amounted to forty
" acres."W Again, the " statement of donations to schools,
"clergy, churches, exhibitions, and charities in Ireland" is
given at ;^4,I02 lis. 3d. for the ten years i870-i88o.('^)
The Drapers' Company make the following returns (in Drapers'
1824): — "Expended on works of a public nature in Ireland, ^-o^P^^^y-
(a) Returns, p. 114. (/') Jliid. p. 87.
(i) Returns, p. 45. {d) Jlnd. p. 62.
54 London and Londonderry.
"1829,^659 13s. 4d.; 1830,^:2,114 13!?. lod.; 1831,^:5.557
"15s. 8d.; 1832,^:3552 14s. 6d.; 1833, ;^i,2i8 4s. 2d.; and
"invested in buildings and plantations in Ireland, 1829,
"i:i,88o.3s. (M:, 1830, ^2,020 2s. id.; 1831, ^1,925 3S-
"4d.; 1832,^:3,177 2s. Id.; 1833, ^2,499 4s. 6d.;^'('0 also,
" Expended on works of a public nature, and invested in
" buildings, improvements, and plantations in Ireland, 1871,
"£1,277 lis. 2d.; 1872,^1,321 95. lod.; 1873, ;^990 i8s.6d.;
" 1874, ;^2,028 9s.; 1875,2,452 los. 7d.; 1876,^1,294 i8s.
"lod.; 1877, ^1,163 2s. 7d.; 1878, i:i2i5 13s. 5d.; 1879,
" ^1,968 7s. 5d.'V') Charities in Ireland are not particularized,
but there is the following (in which it is not stated what
proportion is expended in Ireland): — "Amount expended
" by the Company during the last ten years in furtherance
"of general and technical education, 1870, i:2,659 5s. lod.;
"1871, AoS^ 2s. 5d.; 1872,2,577 5s. 7d.; 1873, ;^2,72i i8s.
"3d.; 1874, £},6^A 7s- 5d.; 1875, 3,161 3s. 7d.; 1876, ^3,205
"2s. I Id.; 1877, ^,"5,482 i8s. I Id.; 1878,^7,373 9^. gd.; 1879,
"i:7,i57 7s. 3d.'X')
Fishmongers The Fishmongers' Company make the following returns :
Company. _" Ireland, charities, 1828-29, A>8o5 i6s. 6d. ; 1829-30,
" £^,667 2s. rod.; 1830-31,^:1,205 7s. iid.; 1831-32,^1,378
"17s. 5d.; 1832-33.^:1,399 los. 5d.; 1833-34, i:2,o63 15s.
" iod."("') " Seven schools, masters' houses, and gardens in
" Londonderry rent free."M " Irish account, grants to
" schools, farming societies, and to Roman Catholic and
'Presbyterian ministers, 1870,^:1,052 7s. 2d.; 1871, i:i,i42
"5s. 8d.; 1872, i:2,i94 3s. 5d.; 1873, ;^i,852 123. 8d.; 1874,
"i:2,io2 I?.; 1875, £\,SO<) i8s. 2d.; 1876,^1,397 15s. 4d.;
" 1877. £^006 6s. 2d.; 1878, i:i,592 17s. 8d.; 1879, ^1,854
" 2s. 5d. Outlay on improvements, &c., 1870, ^1,658 5s.
"lod.; 1871,^:1,324 I2s.8d.; 1872, ;Ci,092 3s.; i873,;^i,689
"5s. lod.; 1874, ;^2,3i7 7s. 5d.; 1875, ;^2,5i3 3s. id.; 1876,
"i:i,547 i8s. 8d.; 1877, i:i,705 os. 4d.; 1878,^1,409 lis.
"9d.; 1879, /:1,2980s. 8d.;"(/) besides rates, taxes, tithe rent-
[a) Returns, p. i. (/■) Ilu'd. p. 33. (<) Ibid. p. 34.
(1/) Returns, pp. 2-4. (<:•) Ibid. p. 83. (/) //'/(/. pp. 85-103.
oppression still Rampant. 55
charge, and county cess. Contributions to churches in
Ireland are given from 187010 1879 at £2'66 15s. iod.,(«)
and seven schools are returned as maintained by the Com-
pany.W Annual subscriptions in Ireland, including to an
infirmary, orphan societies and mutual improvement so-
cieties, schools and one church, are given at — " 1870, ;^34
"14s.; 1871, i;i25 14s.; 1872, ;^i04iis.; 1873, ;6'io6 IIS. ;
"1874,^:102 IIS.; 1875, i;i09 IIS.; 1876, ^109 lis.; 1877,
"i^QQ IIS.; 1878, £(:)6 8s.; 1879, ^112 I4.'(') Among the
recipients of annual grants are enumerated dispensaries.
The Skinners' Company make the following statements: — .skinners'
" The Skinners' Company, for the purpose of securing the °'^P^"y
"speedy construction of a railway from Uungiven to Lima-
" vady, . . . has recently given the land where the railway
" is on their estate, paid ^500 towards the preliminary ex-
" penses, and guaranteed five per cent, interest on ;^ 20,000,
" a large portion of the capital to be expended. . . . The
" Company make an annual grant to the Rector of Dun-
" given, and his farm rent free, . . , also annual allow-
"ances to Presbyterian ministers and Roman Catholic
" priests ; provide a large building for schools, pay the
" masters' and mistresses' salaries, pay salary of dispensary
"surgeon, subscribe to the repair of churches, &c., building
" of manses, pay for the cleansing of streets, and subscribe to
" everything for the benefit of the tenants, &c."(<0 " They
" have also recently guaranteed interest at five per cent, on
" £Sf>oo, portion of the capital to be expended in con-
"structing a railway from Magherafelt to Draperstown."('^)
" Grants are anmialty made to schools upon the estate of
" the Company in Ireland."*/)
The Salters' Company return " Donations and subscrip- Saiters'
"tions to Irish objects, 1870-71, ^276 2s. 4d. ; 1871-72, ^°'"P''"''-
";^208 i6s. 2d. ; 1872-73, ;^ 1 464s. 9d.; 1873-74,;^ 1,041 i6s.
"9d. ; 1874-75,^:1,524 4s. 4d. ; 1875-76, i:2i3 i8s. iid. ;
" 1876-77, ;^208 5s. iid. ; 1877-78, ^194 i6s. 2d.; 187S-79,
{a) Returns, p. 115. [b) Jhid. p. 116. (;) Ibid. p. 112.
((/) Returns, p. 20. {e) Ibid. p. 20. (/) //'/(/. p. 31.
56
London and Londonderry.
The Deputa-
tion of the
Skinners'
Company,
1873.
Ulster
Tenant-riglit
questioned.
"-^93 9S- ; iS7(j-8o, £2^j i8s. 5d.,"(") and for religious and
educational purposes, "1870-71,^1,244 3s. 2d.; 1871-72,
" £\,6oS OS. 8d. ; 1872-73, i^ 1,868 17s. yd. ; 1873-74, ^^2,526
" los. id.; 1874-75, ^1,817 OS. id.; 1875-76, ^^1,804 2s.
"8d.; 1876-77, ;^i,798 los. 8d. ; 1877-78, 1,900 15s. id.;
"1878-79, i;i,8o2 los. 4d. ; 1879-80, ^^1,983 8s. 2d." W
They also stated ) that they have, since 1853, given large
subscriptions to the building of churches and payment of
clergy.
The Companies that had sold their estates before 1881
(the Haberdashers', Vintners', Goldsmiths', Grocers', and
Clothworkers') make no Irish returns, but the Grocers still
keep up their contributions (as pointed out before), and the
Clothworkers when selling abated .^1,500 per annum out of
the interest of the money left on mortgage to meet expendi-
ture for public and charitable purposes, out of which it
appears Sir H. Bruce allows ofily £\'-,o a-year for the
purposes mentioned.
The Report of the Deputation of the Skinners' Company
to the Court of Assistants, 1873, sheds considerable light
on the proceedings of the Companies for good and evil.
These gentlemen recommend additional grants to a con-
siderable amountW to the payment of the clergy of different
denominations, the repair of churches, and the building and
repair of schooIs,(^) as well as to the development of
railways,(/) the improvement of the town of Dungiven,(,?') a
system of arterial drainagejC-^) and the making and repair of
bye-roads ;(0 and so far their report is unobjectionable;
but there are other recommendations of a very different
type. The hint is given that " In the case of the Skinners'
" Company, it might possibly be held, if the question were
"litigated, that the Ulster Tenant-right Custom, though
" undoubtedly prevalent, in fact, during the latter part of Mr.
" Ogilby's lease, does not in law now bind the Company as
[a) Returns, p. 25. (b) Ibid. p. 25. (c) Ibid. p. 26.
[d] Report, pp. 24-30. {e) Ilnd. pp. 30-32. (f) Ibid. pp. 47, 48.
[g) Ibid pp. 48-53. (/i) Ibid. pp. 53-54. (/•) Ibid. pp. 54-55.
oppression still Rampant. 57
" reversioners ; 'V) rules are recommended, of a very stringent
character, for the purpose of limiting and gradually destroy-
ing the tenant-right, beginning with the prohibition of open
free sale ;(''') and re-valuation is recommended, on the
ground that the rents are too low» (It may be noticed
here that the usual course for all the Companies has been to
have re-valuations at intervals of twenty or twenty-one years,
and that in almost every case re-valuation means increase
of rent ; but it is seldom that object has been so openly
admitted beforehand, as in this instance.) The tables of
rentals, &c., appended, show that in almost every case the
rent was already above the Government valuation, exclusive
of buildings.!"')
(a) Report, p. 35. (/;) llnd. pp. 37, 38. (< ) Ihid. ]ip. 42, 43.
((/) Report, Tables A to F inclusive.
/. V
5S
London and Londonderry .
SECTION V.
liRIGIITENING PROSPECTS— THE CLAIMS OF THE
FUTURE.
Prelude to
the Age of
Inquiry.
Principles
established
in 183S.
Public attention could not fail to be earnestly directed to
the self-damaging exposures on both sides that occurred
in the ever-memorable case of the Skinners' Company v.
the Irish Society. For, although the plaintiffs failed at all
points on the merits of their case, they elicited many facts
that both sides would have been wiser to keep back, and
the counsel for the Crown and the City of London, while
defending triumphantly the right of the Irish Society to
exercise a large discretion, regardless of the Companies, in
the administration of their trust property, emphatically
declined to endorse, as a whole, the way in which that dis-
cretion had been actually exercised ; and Lord Langdale,
in giving judgment in the clearest and most forcible terms
in favour of that discretion, distinctly stated that the
Society had in the past adopted mistaken viexus as to their
duties and responsibilities. Besides, the definite establish-
ment of the fact that the Irish Society are Trustees for
p7iblic purposes alone, of necessity would draw attention to
the position of the Companies who hold by grants from the
Irish Society, and so the inauguration of the Age of Inquiry
was inevitable, though it might not immediately set in.
Furthermore, the Crown was not likely to go to sleep
again, even if the City of London should do so ; and two
important principles laid down by Sir C. Wetherall for the
City were sure to bear fruit at no distant day, especially as
Sir Charles was on the zu inning side. These were — ist. The
undeniable right of the Crown to remedy all indefinitcness
in public trusts, apart altogether from the absolute legis-
Brightening Prospects — Claims of tlic Future. 59
lative power of the Crown, Lords, and Commons ;(«) and The Trusts
2nd, The fact that the trusts as well as the property are '™'''
territorial, are Irish only.(''') In these two principles will be
found the main elements for a final solution.
The first beginning of the Age of Inquiry was the Com- The Age of
mission of 1834, to which some of the Companies sent in •"'i^'O' sets in.
returns, while others, not recognising that the ground was
beginning to slip from beneath their feet, neglected to do
so. No immediate result followed from these proceedings,
but from 1854 the inquiries by public authority have
become more numerous and searching, with the inevitable
result that the pretensions of the Companies to be private
landowners, and the claims of the Irish Society to per-
petual continuance, are being more and more strongly
scouted by intelligent public opinion, and the day of
reckoning is visibly drawing nigh. In that year, evidence
chiefly regarding the Irish Society was received by the
Commissioners on Municipal Corporations in England and
Wales, from whose report quotations have already been
given showing the contempt with which the Irish Society
treated the visitatorial power of the City of London. The
most remarkable item in the report of these Commissioners
was the following : — "We do not know of any pretext of Supremacy
" argument for continuing this municipal supremacy of the corporations
" Irish Society. The Commissioners declined to receive '"defensible,
"evidence of the manner in which it is exercised. . . .
''But a control of this kind, maintained at the present day
" by the municipality of one town in England over another
" in Ireland, appears to us so indefensible in prittciple that
" our opinion would not have been changed, even if it had
" been found (which we have no reason to doubt) that
" hitherto it has been conducted with discretion and for-
" bea ranee." That it has not been exercised with either
discretion or forbearance, however, is clearly proved by
facts which have been already cited in Sec. II. and Sec.
IV. from official records, and by the evidence before
(a) Pleadings, &c., p. 864. (/') //'/</. p. S70.
6o
London and LoJidotiderry.
Tlie Irisli
S^ociety to be
dissolved, \-c.
the Commission on the City of London Corporation^
which sat in the same year, and made the remarkable
recommendation — " T/iat the Irish Society be dissolved ;
"that its Trusts be declared by Act of Parliament;
" and that nev/ Trustees be appointed by the Lord
" Chancellc^ of Ireland." Among the reasons given for
this recommendation were the disappearance in modern
times of all necessity of and benefit accruing from connec-
tion with the Corporation of London^') the embarrassment
unavoidably arising from the distance of the estates,W with
the additional expense resulting, and the wasteful and
costly management of the recent past.W The figures
proving the last point have been already cited.
Commissioners In 1 854 appeared also the Report of the Commissioners
on Municipal -n^.-i/^ • -tiii-i-i
Corporations, on Municipal Corporations in Ireland, which cited several
re .-in . of the misdccds of the Irish Society in the past, referred to
the strong feeling of dissatisfaction prevalent in London-
derry, and complained of the persistent refusal of the
Society and their Agent to furnish information,('^) adding
that the only authentic information available relating to
the revenues was the evidence of the Secretary before a
Committee of the House of Commons in i824,(/) to the
effect that the income was nearly ^^7,000 per annum, and
the yearly expenditure at Derry and Coleraine, for public
purposes, was nearly ^500. In close connection with this
Report, although twenty-two years later, must be mentioned
the investigations of Sir C. E. Lewis, M.P. for the city of
Londonderry, in 1876, which resulted in the establishment
The Account- of two facts : — ist, That expenditure has been hidden by
keeping. i ? / • i /■ • 11 t^i
the deductions made from the receipts; and, 2nd, Ihat
expenditure has been hidden by the addition of expenses
to items of outlay for public improvements, &c.(.?) All the
previous points, and some others, were summed up by Mr.
{a.) Report of evidence, passim.
(Jb) The Irish Society of London : its Expenditure and Management, 1875, p. 16.
(c) Ibid. p. 16. (d) Ibid. pp. 13, 14. (<■) Ibid. pp. 9, 10. (/) Ibid. p. 10.
(g) The Irish Society of London : its Expenditure and Account-keeping,
1876, p. 16.
Brightening Prospects — Claims of the Future. 6 [
Lewis in a speech made to his constituents in October,
i875,('0 which resulted in a numerously-signed memorial
for doing away with the Irish Society.i''') and appoint-
ing new Trustees from local gentlemen who should be
" thoroughly independent men of high public character
" and standing," and that the new Trustees should apply
the ivhole of the funds, after deducting necessary expenses,
for the benefit of the city of Derry and the town of
Coleraine.
The Reports of the Commissioners for inquiring con-chmty
cerning Charities having a much wider scope than the °'"""55'°"<^'^-
Companies and the Irish Society, are of importance mainly
as supplying from public records the telling evidence of
Mr. Lucraft against the Companies, that gentleman having
cited his cases, as is shown by the Appendix to his
evidence, from vols. 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 22, and 32.
The powerful Constitutional agitation in Ulster, which The i.and
led to the recent legislative reforms for the benefit of of 1870, &c.
Irish tenants, must not be omitted in this connection.
Attention was specially drawn to the anomalous condition
of the estates held by the London Companies, and to the
innovations being made there on Ulster Tenant-right,
which was not the least efficient of the causes that led to
the Land Act of 1870, the appointment of the Royal Com-
mission under the presidency of Lord Bessborough in
1880, resulting in the more drastic Act of 1881, and the
succession of legislative enactments since passed, and by
no means completed yet. The disposition evinced by the
remaining Companies to sell their estates, and their reluct-
ance to sell to the tenants on fair terms, has been even a
mightier factor in bringing inquiry to bear on the entire
history, conduct, and position of the Companies. The most Proposed
telling incidents in the procedure of the Companies in this Rents by the
latest period have been the proposal of the Fishmongers' comp°n|^n^
Company in 1872 to raise rents, already above the Govern- J.^P' ^"?
Clothworkers'
{a) The Irish Society of London ; its Management and Expenditure, 1875, estate in 1871.
p. 19. (/') //'/(/. p. 25.
62
London and Londonderry.
Culmination
of the Age
of Inquiry.
Tlie koy;il
Commission
on the Livery
Companies
of London,
1880-84.
The Returns
of the
Companies.
ment valuation, by amounts ranging from 12 to 400 per
cent.,!'') and the sale of the Clothworkers' estate to Sir
Hervey Bruce in 1871, notwithstanding the fact that the
tenants made a higher offer,!''') followed as that was by the
increase of the rents in 1874 by amounts ranging in many
cases from 30 to 80 per cent., with the result that the rents
on an estate where Tenant-right was confessedly unre-
stricted, became as high as on the adjoining Bruce estate
where it had been cut down to five years' purchase of the
rent. Next in importance to these must be placed the
Report of the Deputation of the Skinners' Company, 1873,
already referred to in Sec. IV.
From all these causes, and from the increasing energy
displayed by the City of London, under the new munici-
pality of the metropolis, in seeking to ascertain and enforce
its rightful claims against the Companies, the Age of
Inquiry culminated in 1880 in the appointment of the
Royal Commission to inquire into the Livery Companies
of London, under the presidency of the Right Hon. the
Earl of Derby. This Commission differed from all that
had preceded it in receiving evidence from all quarters on
all points dealing with the history, constitution, position,
and conduct of the Companies, and in demanding from the
Companies full returns on all these points, together with
any suggestions for reform they might choose to offer. (')
Returns were in consequence furnished by many of the
Companies, and it is worthy of note that all declined to
make any suggestions regarding reform, alleging that their
conduct and management in ail respects had always been
everything that could be desired, even while several of
them supplied in their returns strong evidence against
themselves, compelled thereto by the existence of public
(a) Memorial to the Fishmongers' Company, 1872, Appendices A and B,
pp. 9-24.
(/') Correspondence between the Clothworkers' Company and the Deputies of
their Tenants, 1 871.
((") Mandate from the Royal Commission to the Officers of the Companies,
March 14th, 1880.
Ih'igh ten ing Prospects — Cla ims of the Fu tu re. 63
records that could neither be questioned nor explained
away. One general feature of the returns from the Com-
panies connected with Ireland was the practical acknow-
ledgment of Trusteeship in the accounts of monies
expended on public and charitable purposes from year to
year in Ireland (already cited in Sec. IV.). Another note-
worthy feature was the citing of the Charters under which
they exist, thus proving them to be, not clubs, but depart-
ments of State for the superintendence and management
of trade and manufactures, especially in London. Of the
rest of the returns the following are the most interesting
points :—
The Clothworkers' Company quote an order of the High The cioth-
Court of Chancery, 1840, directing the application ofc°J^p"
certain portions of their trust property, and orders and a
scheme issued by the Charity Commission dealing there-
with, approved by Her Majesty in Council, 26th March,
1878.M
The Skinners' Company report^ an order of the Court skinners'
of Chancery, 1828, and control by the Charity Com- "'"P''"-^*
missioners, 1 870-1 880, in regard to the charitable bequest
of Lawrence Atwell, 1588. Also an order of the Court of
Chancery, 1822, modifying the application of the bequest
of Thomas Plunt, I557,(') and a similar variation by that
Court of the bequest of Sir Andrew Judd, I553.("')
The Drapers' Company report various instances of control Drapers'
over their trust properties by the Court of Chancery and "'"P^"*'-
the Charity Commissioners.^)
The Mercers' Company report decrees obtained against The Mercers'
them on the information of the Attorney-General for con- °'"P*"y-
verting to their corporate property the increased rents
of Bancks' Charity, 1619,'/) confirmed on appeal to the
House of Lords, 1828; for similar action with regard
to Sir Thomas Bennett's Charity(,f) of 1616, confirmed on
(a) Returns, pp. 14-17.
(/') Returns, p. 9. (1) Ihid. p. II. {d) Ibid. ji. 12.
(c) Returns, pp. 8-10.
(/) Returns, ]). 16, [i;) Ibid. p. 18.
64
London and Londonderry.
Mr. lionjaniin
Lucraft's
Evidence.
Conversion
by Companies
of Trust
Properties to
their own use.
appeal to the House of Lords, July, 1828; for non-appli-
cation of Lady Camden's legacies of 1642, in 1831 ;(«) and
control of Peter Symond's gift of 1586 by the Charity
Commissioners in 1824,!''') and of Dean Colet's estate by the
Endowed Schools Commissioners (1876 and i879),(') with
some other instances of recent control by the Charity
Commissioners. In marked contrast to this, informations
on somewhat similar grounds, filed against the Fishmongers'
Company, are stated in the Returns to have resulted in
every case favourably to the Company.
Of the English evidence given before the Commi.ssion,
far the most important and valuable was that of Mr.
Benjamin Lucraft, a member of the London School Board.i"')
Without disputing any of the claims made by Mr. Goschen,
M.P., on the same day for the extension of University
teaching, this gentleman put forward strong claims on
behalf of educational purposes generally, emphasizing most
especially the need of technical education for workmen.
In support of his position that a large portion of the cor-
porate property of the Companies belonged in justice to
educational and charitable purposes, he cited from the
Reports of the Charity Commissioners the following gross
frauds on the part of various Companies, in converting to
their own use property bequeathed under trust for charit-
able purposes, by not carrying out the expressly declared
wish of the founders, and in other ways : — " Armourers'
"Company: John Scott, i^ 100 to be laid out in freehold
" estate, dated 1717. The object was to benefit the poor.
" The Company still pay only 4 per cent, on the amount of
" the original bequest, although the terms were that the
" money should be spent on freehold estate. Of course,
" having been bequeathed so long ago as 17 17, if this money
"had been laid out on freehold estate, it would have
" produced much more than it does now. Thomas Dring,
"original sum ;^20, for which the Company now grant £^
(a) Returns, p. 20. (/') Ihid. p. 32. (c) Ihid. p. 38.
[d) Evidence, 13th day, July 19th, 1882.
Brightcjiing Prospects — Cla ims of the Futu7-e. 6 5
" per annum to the poor, and retain the capital, which they
" have held for 160 years. The sum of i^20 laid out in pro-
" perty 160 years ago, must yield a very much higher income
" than £^ per annum at the present date. Brewers' Com-
" pany : lilizabeth Lovejoy, in 1694, gave ^180 to be spent
"in land. The Company has held this money in invest-
" ment nearly 200 years, and continues to pay only £<^ per
" annum, as provided originally, whereas the property in
" which such money has been invested must have multiplied
"many times. If the money has not been invested in real
" estate, the Company ought to be required to pay as though
" it had been so invested, as they were instructed so to do.
"Barbers' Company: John Bancks, in 161 9, gave a house
"and six acres of land in Holloway, the then yearly rent
"being £17. Of this sum £s was to be applied to Christ's
" Hospital, which annuity of £'^ was purchased by the
" Company in 181 1. The Company were still liable to pay
" the balance for the carrying out of the purposes named
" in the donor's will, viz., the preaching of seven sermons
" annually. The present value of this large estate cannot
" be ascertained without full powers of investigation, but it
" must be a very large sum. Six acres of land now in
" Holloway must be of immense value, therefore we think
" there ought to be some strict inquiry into the whole of
"that case. And as the income is too great to be applied
" for the encouragement of preaching sermons in the City
" of London, and as the Company have no title to the estate,
" I suggest the application of this money to some useful
" purpose, say to educational purposes, as set forth in the
" Endowed Schools Act, 1869, section 30. Robert Ferbras,
"in 1470, devised two freehold houses in Dowgate Hill for
" the benefit of poor members of the Company. For nearly
" 400 years the Company applied the income to their own
" corporate funds, and they appear to have been ignorant of
" the fact that the property was left for charitable purposes,
" until, in 1848, the fact was revealed on their being required
" to give a title for the sale of the property to the Corpora-
66 London and Londonderry .
" tion. I contend that the money thus applied to the Com-
" pany's funds for a period of 400 years ought to be restored
" to the Trust, and be applied in support of actual barbers,
" not merely for nominal ones. Clothworkers' Company :
"Samuel Middlemore, in 1647, gave ii'Soo to purchase
" lands. After possessing this money for over 230 years, the
" Company continue to contribute only £yo per annum out
" of their corporate funds. If such money were actually laid
"out in lands, it must now be worth more than £yo a-year ;
" if not so invested, the Company should be required to pay
" the penalty of neglect. Fishmongers' Company : Jeremiah
"Copping, in 1686, gave i^i,8oo to be laid out in lands.
" Had such money been laid out in lands 200 years ago, as
" directed by the founder's will, it would now have yielded
" an enormous rental. The Company now pay from consols
"£71 per annum only. Embroiderers' Company: Mark
" Howse, in 1629, left £140, with which lands were to be
"bought. After possessing this money for over 250 years,
"the Company continue to pay only £y per annum ; and
" four years later a sum of ^400 was given by the same
"benefactor to be spent in real estate, then estimated to be
"worth ^20 per annum, for which the Company now pay
" ;^I4 only. A further grant was made in 1635 ; and for all
"these only ^26 a year is paid. . . . Grocers' Company :
" Humphry Walwyn, in 16 12, left;^6oo to be spent in houses,
" the rents of which were to be applied to charitable purposes.
"The Company pay a rent-charge of ^30 per annum, but
"retain all benefits which may arise from augmented value.
"William Robinson, in 1633, left ;^400 to disburse the sum
" in purchase of lands and houses, but the Company pay four
" per cent, on the original capital, and claim all benefits
"obtainable from the increased value. Mercers' Company:
"Hugh Perry, about 250 years ago, left ^^270 in lands to
"yield ^^13 per annum. The Company pay the original
"value of ^13, and keep the benefit of the increased value
"for their own use. Dame Joan Bradbury, in 1523, left
" lands then worth ;^20 a-year. The object of the trust was
Brightening Prospects — Claims of the Future. 67
" for carrying out certain superstitious uses (I do not know
" what those uses were), and to pay 30s. a-year for coal to
" the poor of St. Stephen, Coleman Street. The Company
"hold a block of buildings, on ground measuring 8^ acres,
" in Long Acre, which I believe to yield over ;£'27,ooo a-year.
" The accounts show that they still pay the sum of 30s. to
" the poor of St. Stephen, Coleman Street. This, I think, is
" one of the cases that ought to be inquired into. Merchant
" Tailors' Company : Sir John Hanbury, in 1639, gave ;^SOO
"to be laid out in lands; but the Company have invested
" the money as they thought fit, and continue to pay less
" than four per cent, on the original value. Skinners' Com-
" pany : Margaret Audley gave ;£"700 to be spent in lands,
^' the income to be applied to charitable purposes. No lands
" appear to have been purchased, or, at any rate, the benefits
" of such purchase have never been given to the trust,
" inasmuch as the original annuity of ;^35 only is still paid,
" notwithstanding that the Company have held the capital
"for 170 years." (It must be remembered that these cases
are merely specimens, not by any means exhaustive, even
adding the cases that the Companies have admitted in
their returns.) Mr. Lucraft added the suggestion that im-
practicable trusts should be diverted in accordance with
the spirit of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, specially in
favour of technical education. Three specimen cases of
such trusts are given in the Appendix to his evidence.^
and extravagant doles are strongly complained of, speci-
men cases being given from Whittington's Charity, Mercers'
Company.l'z)
Passing over the evidence of witnesses who urged the The insh
claims of Magee College on the revenues of the Irish
Society, the most important portions of the Irish evidence
are those of Mr. Robert Stuart, Kilrea (already quoted in
part in Sec. IV.), and other tenants on the estates,
who claimed that in case of sale the tenants should be the
purchasers on fair, not extravagant terms, and that of
(a) Evidence, 13th day, p. 16.
68
London and Londonderry.
The Report
of the Royal
Commission :
Reasons
for State
interference
with the
Corporate
Funds.
R. H. Todd, LL.D., Solicitor, Derry, which was mainly
devoted to proving the Companies to be Trustees, and to
putting forth further suggestions as to the disposition of
the purchase-money, substantially almost the same as those
that shall be urged farther on.
After hearing evidence from the Companies, in which an
attempt was made to rebut the charges and claims made
against them, and taking the opinions of two eminent legal
authorities, who gave a strong though guarded pronounce-
ment in favour of State interference, the Commissioners
presented a carefully prepared and voluminous Report, from
which the following is an extract : —
"It appears to us obvious that the State has Jp right at
" any time to disestablish and disendow the Companies of
" London, provided the just claims of existing members to
"compensation be allowed. . . . We are of opinion that
" the State should intervene, but only for the purposes of
" (i) preventing the alienation of the property of the Com-
" panics of London; (2) securing the permanent application
" of a considerable portion of the corporate income thence
"arising to useful purposes; (3) declaring new trusts in
" cases in which a better application of the trust income of
" the Companies has become desirable.
" The propriety of State intervention as regards the
" corporate estate of the Companies appears to us to be
" proved by the following considerations as hereinbefore
"mentioned: — (i) That the Companies were originally a
" municipal committee of trade and manufactures ; (2) that
" on their incorporation by the Plantagenet monarchs they
" became a State department for the superintendence of the
" trade and manufactures of London ; (3) that from the
The Beginning " period of their incorporation till 1835 it was necessary
" to obtain the freedom of a Company in order to become a
"citizen of London, and that at the present day municipal
" privileges are enjoyed by the members of the Companies ;
" (4) that, much of the real property acquired by the Com-
" panies during the pre-Reformation period was acquired for
BrigJitening Prospects — Claims of the Future. 69
"the promotion of religious or benevolent objects ; (5) that
" their lands, which were confiscated at the Reformation as
"being held to superstitious uses, were suffered to be redeemed
" only upon a representation that the rents zvcre required for the
" relief of poverty and the promotion of education ; (6) that it is
" not improbable that certain of the Companies' title-deeds
" which were destroyed in the fire would, if preserved, have
" disclosed trusts ; (7) that the law of trusts in its application
"to the increment of the Companies' city house property
" appears to have promoted the increase of the Companies'
" corporate estate at the expense of their trust estate ;
" (8) that in certain cases trusts to convert charitable
" bequests of money into land have not been executed
" by the Companies, and that such neglect has been
" injurious to the Companies' trust estate ; (9) that the
" Companies are public bodies, holding realty {a) under
" City of London which has enabled them to acquire the
" licences in mortmain, {b) by virtue of a custom of land
" therein in excess of such licences, and are, therefore,
" Trustees of their corporate estate J or public purposes!' All
these reasons are sound, the only objection to them being
that (8) is perhaps put a little too mildly (see Mr. Lucraft's
evidence). It is added — " As regards the Trust estate of
" the Companies, the facts that several of the numerous
"charities of which it consists date from the fourteenth
" century, and that nearly all were founded more than fifty
"years hence, prove, in our opinion, the necessity for a
" revision of the Trusts."
The recommendations that follow are in the spirit of Objects of
these reasonings and remarks ; the only point needing to pubuT'umuy^
be quoted therefrom is the definition of " works of acknow-
"ledged public utility," to which it is urged that a large
proportion (we would rather say the whole) of the corporate
property should be applied. These are, according to the
Commissioners, "(i) Scholastic and scientific objects, i.e.,
"elementary education, secondary education, classical
" education, technical education, scientific research ; (2)
70
London and Londonderry.
Defects of
this Report.
The claims
of Ulster
ignored.
Mr. Lea's
claim for
Ulster.
" General public purposes, e.g., hospitals, picture galleries,
" museums, public libraries, parks, and open spaces ; (3) The
" improvement of workmen's dwellings, and, where the
" Companies represent trades, subsidies to the benefit
" societies of such trades."
This Report may be fairly called the beginning of the end.
Its chief defects are, want of complete thoroughness in
dealing with the corporate estate, and the ignoring of the
claims of Ulster as being outside the scope of the Com-
mission. It is, indeed, a remarkable and very unsatisfactory
fact that, apart from the witnesses examined, no one of
the advocates of reform hitherto has put forward the
claims of Ulster with even an approximation to fairness and
fulness, except Mr. Lea, the able and energetic member for
South Londonderry. Mr. Lea's language on the subject
is : — " Having made this brief reference to what I would
" term the greedy policy of the London Companies, I now
" come to the great ground of complaint of the people of the
" North of Ireland against the Companies — the abstraction
"of large sums of money from that country. . . . We do
" complain that when the holduigs are sold the money shotdd go
"to London, where certainly it was not earned, and devoted
"to purposes for which it was certainly never intended.
". . . I am prepared to prove that the Companies have
" no right to withdraw all this money ; to prove this from
"the records of the Companies, from legal judgments, from
" the reports of Royal Commissions."(«) How forcibly does
this spirited and patriotic language contrast with the hap-
hazard statements of Mr. Frith, M.P. for Chelsea ! After
arguing strongly and soundly in support of the proposition
(among others) that "The Companies are subject to the
"control of the Crown, and their lands and monopolous
" privileges were only granted on condition that they per-
" formed certain duties ; they have ceased to perform the
"duties, but they continue to hold the lands," Mr. Frith
makes the following statements, which prove his historical
(a) Speech in the House of Commons, June 2Sth, 1889, pp. 5, 6.
Brii^lUeniug Prospects — Claims of the Future. 7 1
knowledge, as far the Plantation in Ireland is concerned,
to be very hazy and inaccurate : — "As to the Irish Estates
" . . . they were bought with money levied by the Lord
" Mayor on the Companies of London" (two inaccuracies in
one clause), "in reality a municipal tax. I think that they
"should be disposed of upon equitable terms, and to the
"tenants if possible, and f/ie vioney made available for tJie
" new Alimicipatity of London, subject to any equitable
"claims on the part of the districts;" and Mr. Burt, M.P.,
assented to the same rhistaken and unjust view.
A Bill was prepared on the lines indicated by the Report
of the Royal Commission, but it did not pass into law, a
result not ,to be regretted in spite of the damage thus done
to the just claims of London, as the rights and claims of
Ireland were passed over. It is true that Mr. Walker, Q.C.,
then M.P. for County Derry, obtained a promise from some
of the members of the then Government to consent to extend
its provisions to Ireland, in order to secure the same beneficial
applications in Ireland of Irish property as in London of pro-
perty situated in the metropolis ; but this, as an afterthought,
could hardly have been fully ingrafted on the Bill. To
the arguments of the Royal Commission, proving the
Companies Trustees for the luhole of their corporate property
(not a part merely, as claimed by the Commissioners), the
following considerations may be added : —
1st, The Companies, as being departments of State, TheCompanies
incorporated by the Crown for certain purposes which they ^stg^'^for
have long ceased to fulfil, must be held to be public Trustees the whole
° r r ■ °^ THEIR
who have violated their trust, and thus forfeited to the corporate
pROPF'RTV
State the means of carrying out such trusts. They are in
no sense analogous to private clubs, which are entitled
on dissolution to distribute their funds among the actual
remaining members, because (i) their foundation and in-
corporation was an act of the Crown in every instance; (2)
their purposes were public, and public only; (3) their
powers (delegated) were public, and absolute within the
limits of the purposes contemplated. It follows that the
>^:.'
72 London and Londonderry.
State, in dissolving them, is under no equitable restraint in
dealing with their funds, except such as may arise from
just claims to compensation. The only cases in which
such claims can be fairly considered just are the following:
(a) In the case of officials thrown out of employment by
reform, and holding no other employment ; (/i) In the
case of poor members receiving pensions or donations
from the corporate fluids ; (y) In the case of the repre-
sentatives of the original contributors to the tax imposed
by the City for the purposes of the Plantation, if such can
be found, and whether they be present members of the
Companies or no. The equitable claim of this last class
arises from the fact that the original contributors were never
repaid as much as a farthing, the Companies transferring
all the monies they received to their corporate funds.
2nd, The Companies, as a matter of fact, have added to
their corporate property enormous sums of which they have
defrauded the Plantation, while, at the same time, trampling
on the rights of the Crown. This item of plunder, far larger
than any or all perpetrated in England, consists of the
following three portions : —
(a) The spoil of the woods for merchandise, as established
by the scire facias (quoted in Sec. I.), to the value of
^550,666 13s. 4d. Taking into account the changed value
of money, this would now represent considerably over a
million sterling, even without counting interest ! (/?) The
dividends of the "surplus" received during the Babylonish
captivity. These, on the lowest calculation, would now
represent between iJ'200,000 and ^^300,000. (y) The net
rents received from the estates, and carried over to London.
It is 'difficult to estimate this exactly ; but it is certainly
not an exaggerated estimate to set down the total of the
three portions of the plunder as at least two millions
sterling ! (We do not add the proceeds of the sale of
some of the estates in the past, as we claim all that for
Ulster.)
To the arguments already given (in Sec. I.), proving the
Brightening Prospects — Claims of the Future, jt,
Companies Trustees for public purposes in regard to their TheCompanies
Irish estates, may be now added the following, derived u.drw'sh"'
from the history of their relations to Ireland : — Estates.
Sth, That they have all along practically acknowledged
the fact (see cases cited in Sec. II. and Sec. IV.) by
contributions to churches and clergymen, schools and
schoolmasters, public buildings for commercial and legal
purposes, orphan societies, local societies of various kinds,
dispensaries, infirmaries, roads, arterial drainage, building,
paving, and cleansing towns, &c., and, in the present
century, railways.
6th, That they were treated as Trustees responsible to
the Crown in the sequestration in the reign of James I., the
Articles of Charles I. in 1625, the informations in the Star
Chamber, the judgment of the Star Chamber, and the scire
facias.
7th, That the highest legal authorities, some speaking
for the Companies, have recognised the effect of the
judgment of the House of Lords in 1839 to be that the
Companies are Trustees for public purposes ; Sir C.
Wetherall adding that the trusts, as well as the property,
are territorial.
To the objection, which has been actually raised, that
some of these arguments would prove private gentlemen
who are landlords to be also Trustees for public purposes, it
is sufficient to reply — (i) The original private undertakers
were Trustees for one definite purpose under the Orders and
Conditions, but this trust was temporary, and ceased when
once the lands granted to them were settled with tenants
at the easy rent of undertakers, and the provision for mili-
tary defence completed. Whatever faults may, in some
cases, be found with their successors, will come under a
totally different heading from violation of public trust.
(2) The Londoners, on the contrary, were bound also by
the Motives and Reasons, &c., by the Articles of Agree-
ment, the Charters, and the Orders of Charles I. in 1625,
which, taken collectively, imposed ■Oi^.ny permanent trusts,
indirect.
74 London and Londonderry.
pronounced by the House of Lords, as to the part that
came before them, to be unexhausted and inexhaustible.
There is, therefore, no parallel whatever between the case
of the Companies and that of private landlords.
Who are the The Only question, then, remaining for solution is. Who
ene ci.iries . ^^.^ j^ equity and justice the beneficiaries i" — the tenants on
the Companies' estates t or London .■' or the general public
purposes of the Plantation, and specially of the county of
Londonderry, the city of Derry, and the town of Coleraine i^
The points that have been already established by unanswer-
able arguments will enable us to solve this question without
much difficulty.
Not the It is with regret that we are forced to conclude that the
Tel!^ui1",'" Companies' tenants have no direct claim on the purchase-
?n 't°fi^ res'i'ect "^o"^y of the estates or the revenues of the Irish Society.
are only They have been rack-rented most mercilessly in nearly
every case, and robbed of the fruits of their own industry,
and this would, if the Legislature admitted the principle of
restitution, give them a strong direct claim on the past
rents levied by the Companies, which would so far diminish
the fund available for the claims of London. But we have
not a particle of evidence to indicate that they were
intended by James I. or Charles I. to reap any more
benefit than what would result from their holding land
at easy rents. Their claim to benefit indirectly from the
due disposal of the funds is, however, too strong to be
ignored. Their industry has created most of the present
value of the property ; they have been rack-rented without
mercy in defiance of the wishes of James I, and the express
command of Charles I. — this rack-renting being one of the
serious offences punished by the scire facias and the Star
Chamber's judgment ; they have been forced to pay rent
for the wastes that were intended to be theirs without
charge, or deprived of those waste lands altogether —
attempts have been even made to deprive them of the
property which modern legislation has aimed at protect-
ing ; they have been forced to bear a part of the public
Brightening Prospects — Claims of the Future. 75
burdens which ought to have been discharged by the Com-
panies ; they have been robbed of the benefit of the woods,
intended mainly for the Plantation, though in part for the
rest of Ireland as well. (In this respect, as in all others,
the case against the Companies is strengthened by the
70,000 acres unduly obtained.) All these facts make an
overwhelming case for indirect benefit, much stronger than
that of dwellers in the rest of the Plantation. It will be
shown afterwards how this claim may be satisfied, in part
at least. But the tenants have, beyond all doubt — if the
spirit of James I.'s intentions and regulations is to be at all
respected — a direct claim to be the purchasers of the Com-
panies' estates, and that on reasonable terms, not on the
basis of the rack-rents.
It must be admitted that the claims of London against Not London
the Companies cannot be gainsaid or explained away, whatever.
But it is not less clear that these claims apply only to the
corporate estate and the trust property in England, and
do not extend to the Irish estates or the revenues of the
Irish Society. This is conclusively proved by the following
considerations : —
(a) The advantages offered to the City of London, as an
inducement to undertake the Plantation, were merely com-
mercial and manufacturing, together with the settlement of
a superabundant population in positions where they could
make an easy livelihood. No personal or individual gain
was contemplated for, or offered to, any but the actual
settlers. This was perhaps, as has been often suggested,
the strongest reason for the reluctance of the City at first,
and the Companies afterwards.
(/?) Even if the claims of London against the lands were
as large as some persons seem to think, the conduct of the
Companies has created a fund more than sufficient to meet
those claims. The sums — which, as has been pointed out,
are fully two millions sterling — of which the Plantation has
been robbed by the Companies, render the corporate pro-
perty the natural fund to meet the rightful claims of
76 f.ondon and Londonderry.
London, and are sufficient to satisfy these claims to the full.
Indeed, it might be argued that the enormous amount of
these sums gives the Plantation a claim on the corporate
fund. We do not, however, insist on this, though we do
claim most emphatically for Ulster the entire proceeds of
the estates in County Derry that have been sold, as well as
the purchase-money of those that yet remain unsold.
Hut the public By the method of exhaustion, then, we find that the
piant°a^t!on, and Only rightful direct beneficiaries are the public purposes of
Uircountyof *^^^ Plantation, and especially of the county of London-
Londonderry, derry, the city of Londonderry, and the town of Coleraine.
Londonderry, This is what the very language of all the public documents
of CoWaine." issued by James I. on the subject would inevitably lead to,
more especially the Charter, where it recites the powers of
the Irish Society, and the purposes for which they are
granted. It is further confirmed by the judgment of the
House of Lords in 1839, and by the arguments used in the
pleadings in Chancery, 1838, especially the famous saying
of Sir Charles Wetherall, that the trusts, as well as the
property, are territorial, are Irish only. As for the
revenues administered by the Irish Society, it is needless
to refer to them particularly, for the repeated decisions
in the great Chancery suit have settled beyond question
that they belong exclusively to the two Corporations of
Derry and Coleraine, and the lands, harbours, &c., thereto
attached (as has been repeatedly claimed by Sir C. E.
Lewis, former M.P. for Derry City, and many others). It
must be repeated here that the claim of the Plantation is
in one sense retrospective ; it includes the purchase-money
received for the estates sold in the past ; the Haberdashers',
the Goldsmiths', the Vintners', the Grocers', the Cloth-
workers', and the Salters' Companies are no more entitled
to remove the monies received for the estates to England
than are the Skinners' or the Mercers' Company, who have
not yet sold. (It must be added, too, that the former
tenants of the Clothworkers' Company are in justice entitled
to redress of the wrong inflicted on them in the sale to Sir
BrioJUening Prospects— Claims of the Fiitu re. 7 7
Hcrvcy Bruce, by having that sale cancelled, and them-
selves substituted as purchasers, and, if possible, restitution
made to them of the increased rents in which they have
been mulcted since 1874.).
How, 'then, ought the funds to be allocated so as to How the
secure the just rights of the beneficiaries, and meet the be anocat°ed.'^
indirect claims of the tenants (and others) ? The exact
details of such a measure is for the Legislature to settle (or
a Royal Commission, if that machinery should seem ex-
pedient for a final settlement) ; but the following is an
outline of what will be a just and satisfactory arrangement: —
1st, A portion of the fund — how much must be left to
the Legislature to determine — ought to be employed in
the relief of local burdens, such as poor-rates, county cess,
&c. The justice of this is amply proved by the fact that
some of the Companies have (occasionally at least) made
contributions for these and similar objects. In this way
the tenants would be indirectly benefited. Indirectly, also,
they would share with other residents (in Co. Londonderry
and the Plantation generally) in the benefits arising from
the more direct application of the funds to general public
purposes.
2nd, A portion — probably the larger portion — of the
funds ought to be applied to purposes of acknowledged
public utility (to use the words of the Royal Commission),
chieily within the County of Londonderry, but not neces-
sarily confined to it, as the rest of the Plantation ought in
some measure to share the benefit. These should be —
(1) Educational and religious purposes — contributions to
churches and clergy (of different denominations), schools and
schoolmasters, including new schools where needed, whether
elementary or advanced ; colleges, and the support and
development of technical education, including in this the
instruction in the best modern agricultural improvements
of all farmers willing to profit by such instruction.
(2) Objects of general public utility, such as public
libraries, museums, scientific societies, court-houses, police
78
London and Londonderry.
Conclusion.
The two
main points
established :
Indefiniteness
no difficulty
in the way
of these.
barracks, asylums, hospitals, infirmaries, dispensaries, alms-
houses, outdoor relief of the poor in special emergencies,
and similiar objects.
(3) Works of special utility, such as the improvement
of workmen's houses and labourers' dwellings, sanitary
reforms of towns, and the development of special trades in
localities suited for them.
(4) Means of communication — railways, roads (high-
ways and bye-ways), improvement of the quays and
harbours of Derry and Coleraine and any other suitable
ports within the Plantation.
(5) Direct development of the resources of the Planta-
tion— utilizing for manufactures, &c., the water-power of
the Bann, the Foyle, and other rivers ; subsidies to the sea
fisheries, development of commercial communication with
Great Britain and elsewhere, and arterial drainage.
This list is but an outline, put forward by way of
suggestion, not as exhausting the subject.
We may conclude by claiming that we have proved,
beyond the possibility of cavil, the two points that must
serve as the foundation of sound legislative reform in the
immediate future : —
1st, That London is entitled to the corporate property
of the Companies for public purposes. London in this
connection is by moderns usually employed to mean the
whole metropolis, and we have no quarrel with this ex-
tended use of the name.
2nd, That the Plantation, especially the county of Lon-
donderry, the city of Londonderry, and the town of Cole-
raine, is entitled absolutely to the revenues administered
by the Irish Society, and to the whole of the purchase-
money of the Companies' estates in County Derry, retro-
spectively as well as prospectively, and this, too, for public
purposes.
The indefiniteness of some of the trusts is no objection
to this or any similar scheme, for the power of the Crown
to rectify this indefiniteness in the case of public trusts by
Brightening Prospects — Claims of the Future. 79
sign manual is an established principle of law. And over
and above all, there remains the absolute legislative power
of the Crown, Lords, and Commons, to which, in the last
resort, must be our appeal to sweep out of existence
wrongs under which our people have been groaning for
nearly three centuries. The Trusts being once declared by
proper authority, the Courts would find no difficulty in
enforcing them, if necessary, against the new Trustees.
But this necessity could scarcely arise, if, in accordance
with the prayer of those most directly interested in the
coming reform, care is taken to have the new Trustees
chosen from local gentlemen of independent position and
high character for integrity and administrative ability.
Marcus Ward & Co., Limited, Printers, London and Belfast.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11